#1863 - Mark Zuckerberg

The Joe Rogan Experience by Joe Rogan Park Gas by Night All Day! So your new Oculus is awesome. It's very impressive. Yeah, it's very cool. Coming out in October, we're going to be talking about it at our connect conference. That's coming up. Yeah, pretty excited about it. It's so interesting when you put it on, so I'll just describe it to people. When I put it on, there was an avatar in front of me and it was an alien woman.

The alien woman, when I moved my mouth, she moved her mouth, when I moved my eyes left and right, it's tracking my eyes. When I make like an angry face, it makes an angry face when you go like, oh, it's incredible. You can see the evolution and the progress of this stuff where it's getting to the point where it's mimicking human patterns in a kind of a creepy way. But it's very cool. Yeah, so for me, the stuff is all about helping people connect.

The way that I got into this is, I just started thinking about what would be the ultimate expression of basically people using technology to feel present with each other. Right? It's not phones, it's not computers. How do you get this sensation of actually being present like you're right there with another person? That's to me what virtual and eventually augmented reality are all about.

There's just this whole technology roadmap that we basically just need to go run down over the next decade to unlock that. For the next device that's coming out in October, there are a few big features. The one that you're talking about basically social presence. I mean, the ability to now have eye contact in virtual reality have your face be tracked. So that way, your avatar, it's not just this still thing.

But if you smile or if you frown or if you pout or whatever your expression has that actually just in real time translate to your avatar, obviously our facial expressions are just a huge, there's more nonverbal communication when people are with each other than verbal communication. You had a really good point to about face tracking.

If you're doing a FaceTime call that you don't look at each other in the eye because you're looking at the camera to look in the eye and then you don't see the person. So if you look at the camera, you're looking up and if you look down at the actual screen, you're not making eye contact with the person. But this is able to recreate actual eye contact with the avatar. Yeah, no, this will be the first time really to do that.

You know, when we're using technology today, I mean, it's great to make phone calls and video calls and all that. I mean, if you can't be with someone today, it's nice to be able to see their face. But when you're on a video call, you don't actually feel like you're there with the person, right? You get some signals, some information, you can see their face. But the whole time you're trying to convince your brain that you're actually there with them, but your brain knows, right?

It's like at a deep level that you're not actually there with them. You're just getting some information about what they look like. And to me, what virtual reality on locks is it basically really convinces your brain that you're there. You're in there, you have to basically try to convince your brain that this isn't real, right? And you're not present.

And there are all these just subtle signals and things that either deep in the illusion or break it, that each time we do a new version, we just try to break down a few more of the barriers. So one of the big ones that early on, well, the first one obviously was just like having a headset and be able to look around. And for that, one of the key things that your eye basically refreshes, I don't call it every five milliseconds or something.

So if you turn your head and the image isn't kind of refreshed to where you're looking within five milliseconds, then there's this huge mismatch between your visual system and your vestibular system and your balance in your ear. And people used to kind of feel uncomfortable from that, right? Because there's like a physical discomfort because what you were looking at didn't match as you were rotating your head. So that was kind of the first thing. Then we got hands.

And there was this whole thing that was super interesting there where at first we wanted to display your whole arm, which makes sense, right? Because I mean, you'd think, okay, it's a little weird to just see your hand. But it turns out that your brain is perfectly willing to just accept seeing your hand without your arm. Because your hand is the thing that it's trying to manipulate. And as a matter of fact, if we kind of interpolated and got your arm positioned wrong, right?

So we'd get into these cases where your hands were here and we'd sort of guess that your arm was like that or something. And if your arm was actually like that, but we displayed it so that it was in like that, you're like, ah, my elbow's broken. It felt like really wrong. So it's actually much better to show a limited number of signals but get them right. And then you should just add on over time.

So for previous versions before this, we didn't, the kind of eye contact was all just, you know, AI simulated. But we didn't actually know when you were making eye contact because we weren't tracking the eyes. And now for this version and hopefully, a lot of the different ones that we build going forward, you'll be able to, you know, have realistic facial expressions and more translated directly to your avatar.

But there's this whole roadmap of basically, how do you deliver this like real sense of presence like you're there with another person no matter where you actually are? It was very impressive because even when I moved my jaw side to side, I was like, ah, it did that. It made the o-face like, oh, it's really interesting. And you know, you were saying also that what this, the way this is tracking is you're doing this without putting something on your body, without putting trackers on your body.

But do you ultimately think that that's like, are we going to go ready player one? We have like a haptic feedback suit and you have to zip this thing up to get into a game and in that way, you're going to be fully immersive. Or do you think that I can get to the point where it can mimic the movements of your body accurately without you having to wear something? So I think that there will be opportunities to wear things to augment the experience further. Right?

So we already have these experiments with haptic gloves where you can like, if you touch a digital object, right, if you drop a ball from one hand to the other, you can feel the ball in your hand physically. And that's pretty cool. But I want to design this in a way where you don't need that. Right? So today, there's two primary modes of doing the tracking. I mean, there's this kind of notion of inside out tracking.

You're wearing the headset and it tracks your motion, it tracks your hands, eventually it'll track your legs with an AI model. And you can do that all with your headset. And the big advantage of that is you don't need to have a whole lot of different devices. Right? Eventually, you'll be able to do it without even having controllers. You'll just have the headset. The headset will get smaller. It'll be more portable. You'll be able to bring it around.

You don't want to have a setup that has like 10 pieces. Right? I mean, maybe there are going to be times when you want to kind of have that sort of super deep experience or maybe you have it at your home. But I think ultimately people are going to just want to have versions of this that they can bring around and whether it's on an airplane or you're doing work at the office or you're going to coffee shop or whatever. And for that, you really just want to make it work from the device.

So just from a pair of glasses or something along those lines. This episode is brought to you by the Farmer's Dog. Dogs are amazing. They're loyal. They're lovable. Just having Marshall around can make my day 10 times better. I'm sure you love your dog just as much. And you want to do your best to help them live longer, healthier, happier lives. And a healthy life for your dog starts with healthy food. Just like it does for us, there's a reason having a balanced diet is so important.

But how do you know if your dog's food is as healthy and as safe as it can be? Well, Farmer's Dog gives you that peace of mind by making fresh, real food developed by board certified nutritionists to provide all the nutrients your dog needs. And their food is human grade, which means it's made to the same quality and safety standards as human food. Very few pet foods are made to this strict standard. And let's be clear, human grade food doesn't need the food is fancy.

This means it's safe and healthy. It's simple, real food from people who care about what goes into your dog's body. The Farmer's Dog makes it easy to help your dog live a long, healthy life by sending you fresh food that's pre-portioned just for your dog's needs. Because every dog is different. And I'm not just talking about breeds from their size to their personality to their health every dog is unique.

Plus, precise portions can help keep your dog at an ideal weight, which is one of the proven predictors of a long life. Look, no one, dog or human should be eating highly processed foods for every meal. It doesn't matter how old your dog is. It's always a great time to start investing in their health and happiness. So try the Farmer's Dog today. You can get 50% off your first box of fresh, healthy food at thefarmer'sdog.com-slash-rogan. Plus you get free shipping.

Just go to thefarmer'sdog.com-slash-rogan. Find out the banner or visit this episode's page to learn more. Offer applicable for new customers only. This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. For many of us, the holiday season means more travel, more shopping, more time online, and more of your personal information in more places you can't control. I mean, just think of all the places that you use your credit card or all the times you input your address for shipping.

I don't know about you, but that's not something I want to get spread around. It only takes one innocent mistake, even if it's not your mistake to expose you to identity theft, not to worry, life lock monitors, hundreds of millions of data every second, and alerts you to threats you could miss by yourself, even if you keep an eye on your bank and credit card statements. If your identity is stolen, your own US-based restoration specialist will fix it guaranteed.

The last thing you want to do this holiday season is face drained accounts, fraudulent loans, or other financial losses from identity theft all alone. Gift yourself the peace of mind that comes with life lock and spend more time doing more of the holiday things you love. Get life lock dot com slash JRE and save up to 40% your first year. That's 40% off at life lock dot com slash JRE, life lock for the threats you can't control.

Yeah, I mean, right now there's kind of two, the concepts of virtual reality and augmented reality are sort of on two different development paths, but they're obviously fundamentally interrelated. It's a virtual reality. It's kind of possible to build today. Request two, it's pretty popular doing well, hopefully the new one that comes out. I think it's a pretty big step above it. You can build that today.

There's a lot of new technology that we've researched that goes into that, but it also is building on top of decades of advances and displays that came from TVs and then laptops and phones and some of the display technology gets to piggyback on those decades of innovation and all these different companies that have done that work before. AR is a pretty different beast because what you really want to get to is not a headset.

You want to get to something that's like a normal looking pair of glasses that is, you know, it won't be like a wireframe because you'll need to fit some electronics in it where you'll basically need to have a computer in there and speakers and a microphone and batteries and a laser projector and then the display, which, you know, we and a lot of other folks think is going to be this technology called waveguides, which is completely different from screens because it's a screen.

It's like you're looking at a thing and basically you're looking at like all the pixels that are on the screen. The thing that's different about a waveguide is it'll actually be see through so you'll be able to see the world through it and then it'll display holograms and be able to place them at different depths in the world. So is a waveguide a type of technology like what is a waveguide?

Yeah, it's basically, you know, it's a, they can be made of different substances, plastic, glass, you know, different, different substrates. And they basically get etched or printed in different ways and there's this big debate right now where a lot of the research is going into what is the right way to basically create these waveguides that have the right properties because you want for augmented reality to get something that's wide enough field of view.

So you know, you can imagine in five years we're having this conversation, I'm not here, you're wearing AR glasses, hologram markers here and like it's, so it's not only just is it is a kind of working as a hologram, but there's all these different dimensions beyond just being like a better video chat.

If we want to play poker, you know, it's like I could, you know, I could like deal with deck of cards and we could play hologram, me, could, you know, deal hologram cards and you could have your glasses and physical you there could pick up the hologram cards and then you can have a poker night where like some of your friends that are physically and some of them are there as holograms and it's actually kind of wild.

One of the thought experiments that I like to do is I'm thinking about how few of the things that we physically have in the world actually need to be physical. You know, obviously things like chairs need to be physical where you're not going to be sitting on a hologram, food needs to be physical. But most entertainment type stuff, I mean, not just cards, but games, most media, TVs in the future probably won't need to actually be physical things.

It'll just be like an app, like a, we'll just have an app there on your wall and, you know, it's like snap your fingers, get the hologram there for the TV and we can have our glasses and watch whatever you want there. And I don't know, they're sort of limited to being rectangular now because a bunch of, you know, limits in terms of the physics of how they get produced.

But in the future, you'll just have like some, you know, high school students or college students developing apps and they'll just be wild. And crazy stuff will just kind of get created. So yeah, so you'll eventually be able to kind of have that all come through, through these AR glasses. So are there these AR glasses? Are they in production now? Are they in development now?

Like when you, when you talk about this kind of technology where you can see things that aren't there and look at maps and watch videos and have it all on a small computer that's in the frame of the glasses, do they exist already? No, I think the, we'll start to get stuff that kind of looks like the full version of this over the next.

I'd say three to five years, but I think it'll also start off pretty expensive once, once it's available and then it'll take a while to work down to something that's like hundreds of dollars. But there are versions of this that you can start to see if you relax some of the constraints, right? The kind of ultimate AR experience is that like, okay, you just have normal looking glasses that can kind of have all these, have holograms and make it so you can interact with people wherever you want.

But if you relax the form factor constraint, right? So you have a headset instead of, instead of normal looking glasses, that's the other thing that's coming in the new device that we're shipping in October is mixed reality in VR, right? So we got to play around with this a little bit in the sword fighting experience that we did. But it's, you know, basically the thing about mixed reality is you see the physical world around you. In the context of VR, it's not happening through a wave guide.

It's basically happening through you have cameras on the device that capture the world and then translate that in real time into stereo images, so different images in both eyes so that way you can, because otherwise it's weird and where we kind of see stuff and 3D because we have two eyes, slightly different things. So you're kind of, the computers are putting that together on the fly and then you can overlay digital objects on top of that.

So when we were sword fighting, it's like the version of me and my sword, it's like that was a digital thing, but otherwise it was in your lobby, right? And you could see your lobby. So you could start to see those kind of AR experiences starting to get built, but in a form factor around mixed reality VR first. So that's one direction that I think that the industry is exploring.

The other is basically looking at, okay, so we got to constrain this form factor because we want to have something that looks like normal glasses. What's the most technology that we can fit into a pair of normal looking glasses today? Right, so you kind of go from both sides, right? It's like, what's the experience that we want to have even if we can't get the form factor right? And what's the best we can do with the form factor? And then each year, those two basically converge.

But on the smart glasses side, and we work with Rayban to basically build these smart glasses, and they're the best selling smart glasses that have ever been built. And they're, we're continuing to work on new versions of it, but basically you can get a pair of Rayban Wayfair's now that have a microphone and that they have a speaker, and they can take photos and take videos, and you can post them to Instagram. Yeah, it's a- It's a voice command. Yep, yeah. Oh, so you can take a photo of this?

Yeah, take a photo, take a video, and what kind of image quality you're getting off of these things? It's pretty good. I want to make sure I don't get the spec wrong, and I just have all these different numbers in my head because I want to make sure I don't confuse it with the numbers. Is it like similar to like a selfie camera? Yeah. Like you limited it in comparison to the back camera?

Yeah, no, it's not quite as good as the back cameras today, but it's- Yeah, no, it's like- I mean, you look at the quality and it's good, and it fits in like the corner of glasses. Does that bring about privacy concerns if people could just like start filming things? Yeah, so I mean, we designed it, so it has a light on it, so whenever there- Yeah, I mean, that I think is actually a really important part of this. Could you put a piece of tape over the light?

I mean, I guess in theory, but- If you agree. But it's- Yeah, there it is. Yeah. So that little thing in the corner is that a highlighter or a light? No, that's the light. That's the light. And it blinks and it's a pretty active indicator. And I think if you put a piece of tape over it would probably interfere with the camera. So- And so those wayfarers are essentially the same size as normal wayfarers? Do they have thicker arms?

I think it's ever so slightly thicker, but it's within the same ballpark of weight. You know, so we worked with the company that- I mean, Ray Bans, I mean, these are like some of the most popular and successful glasses and part of the reason why I wanted to work with them is because they know a lot about glasses design and that's not my thing. Right?

So I figure, okay, they'll really bring to the table some constraints around like, okay, like how big can this actually be before it starts getting too heavy on your face and uncomfortable to wear for long periods of time? And I've just learned a ton working with those guys. I mean, they're super sharp. They're this great Italian company and the collaboration has been awesome so far. So I'm looking forward to building more stuff with them.

But yeah, so you basically have these two paths to the technology at once. You're kind of trying to explore all the capabilities, but in a device that's bigger than the form factor that you want while simultaneously, you know, every year or two, cranking and kind of pumping more technology into what's the- Like what can you fit into the kind of form factor that you want and, you know, make it a really great design? And then just eventually these things converge.

And then eventually they'll converge and you'll get the functionality and you'll get the kind of form factor, but it'll still be kind of expensive for a little while. And then you fast forward a few years from there and then I think it'll really be a mainstream thing. But even VR today is doing quite well. I mean, it's- I mean, I don't think we've released like exact numbers on the sales, but yeah, I mean, it's within the ballpark of, you know, Xbox or PlayStation or those kind of platforms.

Really? Yeah, so we started off- this was sort of my theory on this is like, all right, gaming is use case number one for VR, but then pretty quickly, if you look at any platform, right? So computers, phones before games are a huge part of those platforms, but if you look at the main things that people do, it's really about communication because I mean, this is what people do, right?

It's like we communicate and, you know, that's kind of how we get meaning in our life is interacting with other people. So it's a guy, that's going to happen with VR. And sure enough, if you look at the top apps in VR now, the top few are basically social metaverse, hang out with your friends apps that are not centered around any specific game. So that kind of hypothesis around, okay, VR is starting to add different use cases.

It's going from games first, games are still growing and going to be huge to just kind of social hang out with friends, be present, and we're getting all these other use cases that are kind of crazy and are happening sooner than I thought. So you know, another big one is fitness, right? Just because I mean, in a way, I mean, these are like the first physical computing platforms. It's like, you don't like move around while you're on your computer.

I guess you could a little bit on your phone, but it's sort of awkward because you're looking at the small screen. But like VR and eventually AR are really designed to be able to move around and do things and like interact with the world. And that's really important to me. I mean, it's like, I just, like I hate sitting in front of a desk, right? It's like, I just feel like if I'm not like active, I'm like wasting my day.

So, I don't know, there have been these awesome experiences, basically a couple of companies. You can kind of think about it like Peloton for VR, where you know, it's like Peloton, they sell you the bike or the treadmill and then you buy the subscription and you get the classes. There's a couple of companies that basically do, you know, they do cardio, they do dancing, they do boxing. But instead of having to buy a bike, you just have your quest headset.

And once you have that, you buy a subscription to these companies. You can just take lessons and do different things and fitness. And it's, I thought that was pretty wild. I thought that like in the long term, something like that would start to happen. But it happened way sooner than I thought, which was really cool to see. Well, if you do one of the boxing games, you realize right away like this is a really good workout.

Like the virtual boxer, when they come towards you and they're in that ring and they start throwing punches at you and you move in your head, you really wind up getting like a really high heart rate, you put out a lot of energy. It's really good cardio. I found like my feet would hurt because I was pivoting and moving so much because I was like constantly like switching stances and trying to get away with from punches.

And as you get, get further on in some of the games, like the opponents become more difficult. It's really exciting. It's fun. And you get out of there and you're really exhausted. It's a really good workout. Yeah. So I mean, and that's just the kind of nature of the whole platform. And that's one of the things that I love about it. But it's, I mean, those aren't even trying to be fitness apps. Right. That was fun. Yeah, it's just that they just happened to be physical.

Are they capable of having two people like we had a fencing match today at UNID, which is really fun. Are they capable of doing that with boxing now where two people have a book? Because the thing about the fencing match that we had that I thought was really interesting is like you were facing one direction, like 30 feet away. And I was facing another direction, like we weren't even facing each other. It didn't even matter.

Yeah. So you could be in Bangladesh and I can be in Rome and we could be playing a game together. Yeah. So, I mean, the fencing demo our internal team built because we haven't released the new device yet. So in order to kind of make stuff work for it, we kind of build that ourselves. But the boxing ones are made all by other game developers and different developers. So. And they can do that where there's nothing stopping them from having a multiple player mode.

I'm not sure if any of them do yet. I, all the ones that I've played, I mean, I do thrill the fight and I do, and I really like create. But I do those as, as single player. I don't know if they have multiplayer modes, but there's nothing holding them back from doing that. So I'd imagine that they will add that over time. It seems like a smart move. I mean, we were talking about martial arts, like in terms like Moitai and other, I think Giu Jitsu would be a real problem.

But you know, because you'd have to physically have something to resist against. But if you could figure out how to do a Moitai mode where the only problem would be things change when you make contact with stuff. Things change in terms of like positioning and movement and what you're able to get away with and not get away with. Whereas with boxing, boxing is pretty good for that. Like it's probably like the best combat sport for VR.

Because you don't even have to hit anything to feel like you kind of are. And when you get hit with a jab, your screen lights up, like you feel like you got hit. Yeah, I mean, for kicking, punching, it's a little easier to throw a punch and then just pull it back with kicking if you're not hitting a pad or something. You want to like continue rotating or else it's tough to really put your weight into it.

It's, um, do you envision a world where one day the physical experience of the game is going to be in consequential because everything is going to be taking place in your mind. Like it'll be so good, whether it's with haptic feedback or some other kind of input where you'll be able to actually experience very matrix like some thing that's not there. I mean, is that ultimately where all this is going? I don't know.

I mean, I just think that so much of our experience is our body and not just our mind. I mean, there's the strain of kind of philosophical thought that's like, okay, what is a human? It's like, it's really just your brain, right?

It's, and I don't subscribe to that at all because I mean, I don't know what you're, how you feel about stuff, but like I just feel like my whole energy level and mood and kind of how I kind of interact with the world is all just based on it's like, it's so physical, right? It's not just, you know, so I don't, I mean, I guess maybe over time it would be possible to just simulate that through your brain, but I don't believe that we're just brains and tanks or just brains in a body.

I kind of think our, our kind of physical being in the actions that we take there are as much or, I don't know, that's like just as much of kind of the experience of being human. I would agree that, but I would also say that a lot of people just like to sit down and watch movies and that's a very alien experience to the human body and it's something we've become very accustomed to.

So what I'm thinking is if technology advances and it keeps going further in the direction that it's headed now, more immersive, more convincing, you know, that uncanny valley gets bridged and all of a sudden you have a real life experience.

Now whether this is through some sort of neural link type deal or some new technology that tricks the mind into actual experiences, I mean, ultimately isn't that where this is all going to go, where you're going to be able to have experiences without having them. And that's not to negate the beauty of real experiences or not to say we won't have real experiences anymore.

But if you wanted to have a real experience, we talked about like, you know, economic restrictions that would keep you from being able to fly to another part of the world, where you could go there with your Oculus. You could, you know, have a very realistic 3D representation of those, like you took me to Rome today. I got to see Rome. It's very cool.

But do you think that ultimately that is going to get to a part to a time where it's the technology is so advanced that it's indecernable that you would have, you could have a podcast experience with me. You and I can have this, the same conversation right now, but neither one of us being this room. Yeah, I think the nature of technology is that, I think it's, it's interesting to sort of hypothesize what the kind of extreme end state is going to be when something becomes kind of all consuming.

But I think the normal way the stuff plays out is that some things are more easily mimicable or replaceable than others. So we were talking before about, okay, boxing. Yeah, you could do that pretty well. Maybe one day we'll get more time kicking in. Jiu-Jitsu, that's going to be pretty hard, right? Because you need like all kinds of resistance. So I mean, I think the way that this progresses is like, you'll, it'll keep on being able to do more things really well.

And I would guess that there will be other technologies or other things will advance in the world that will prevent any one thing from ever subsuming everything else. So I don't know. I mean, I also, I mean, maybe just because I'm in the position of like working on building this stuff every day, so maybe it's just, it's like, like I'm just trying to make it useful for a lot of things, right?

So to jump to like, it's so useful that it's better than everything is like, is sort of, yeah, I'm just not, I mean, that's that's so far ahead of where we actually are, because I'm like in the trenches every day trying to, trying to get this to work for. Maybe too close to it. Yeah, but from a bird's eye view, like if you looked at where this is going, it's going to become more immersive, right? It's going to get better. It's going to be more convincing.

And this is the real argument for simulation theory, right? The argument for simulation theory is if there's so many civilizations out there in the universe and they're so advanced, ultimately one has to create a simulation, it seems like that's going to happen. If the human race could survive another 100,000 years, the odds that we wouldn't create a really realistic simulation, it's probably pretty low. This episode is brought to you by SimplySafe.

The holidays are coming up and actually SimplySafe is already having a Black Friday sale. So if you're worried about the safety of your home and family, now is the time to get home security. SimplySafe can stop intruders before they break into your home. They're not an old school system that only does something about it after someone is already inside. With SimplySafe's active guard, outdoor protection, they take home security to the next level.

As someone is lurking around your home or acting suspicious, agents will see him in real time. They'll even talk to them directly, set off your spotlights and call the police before anyone can break in. There's no long term contracts, no cancellation fees, and it's around $1 a day for all this protection. So take advantage of their Black Friday sale. This week only, you can get 60% off any new system with a select professional monitoring plan.

Head to SimplySafe.com slash Rogan to claim your discount and make sure your home is safe this season. Keep your home, your family, and your peace of mind protected with SimplySafe. Again, go to SimplySafe.com slash Rogan. There's no safe like SimplySafe. This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. The holiday season means more travel, more shopping, more time online, and more of your personal information and more places you can't control.

I mean, just think of all the places that you use your credit card or all the times you input your address for shipping. I don't know about you, but that's not something I want to get spread around. It only takes one innocent mistake, even if it's not your mistake to expose you to identity theft, not to worry. LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data every second and alerts you to threats you could miss by yourself, even if you keep an eye on your bank and credit card statements.

If your identity is stolen, your own US-based restoration specialist will fix it guaranteed. The last thing you want to do this holiday season is face drained accounts, fraudulent loans, or other financial losses from identity theft all alone. Gift yourself the peace of mind that comes with LifeLock and spend more time doing more of the holiday things you love. Visit lifelock.com slash JRE and save up to 40% your first year. That's 40% off at lifelock.com slash JRE.

LifeLock for the threats you can't control. I think the question is just how realistic and how good. To me, the holy grail is building something that can create a sense of human presence. I've spent the last almost 20 years in my life building social software, making it so that you, whatever limited computation you have, you can share something about your experience and it started off with primarily text when I was in college. Then we all got these smart phones and the head cameras.

Then it became a lot of photos. Now the mobile networks are good enough that it's starting to be a lot more video. To me, this kind of immersive experience is clearly going to be the next step. There's this question about, so being able to feel like your present with someone will unlock so many different types of value for a lot of people. There's social and entertainment. There's professional.

I follow this economist who basically studies that economic opportunity and upward mobility is limited or varies based on what zip code you grow up in. There's different opportunities in different places. Imagine if you didn't have to move to some city that didn't have your values in order to get all the economic opportunities. That would be awesome. It's a future where you can just use AR, VR and teleport in the morning to the office and show up as a hologram.

I think that's going to be pretty sweet. It will unlock a lot of economic opportunity for a lot of people. Is it ever going to be 100% as good as being there in person? Probably not, but when we were talking about doing this conversation, we talked on the phone. I didn't fly down to Austin to talk about whether to have this conversation. Sometimes it's like whatever amount of simulation you have is you can create a lot of value even if it's not 100% as good as the actual physical thing.

I just view our job as we'll basically approach that like an asymptote. I don't know if you'll never be able to do all of the things that you can do in person with a person. But we'll just be able to do more and more. Over the next few years, it'll be working. Hopefully, you'll just be able to teleport in and basically just show up as a hologram and work remotely and live wherever you want. Be with your family wherever they live, but just be able to show up in whatever place.

I think that's going to be pretty awesome. I think we'll be able to do that pretty well. It's going to be a real issue for commercial real estate. There's not going to be a lot of offices. If that actually becomes as good as having a cell phone in your pocket and being able to make a phone call, you can just sort of teleport to work. It's going to be a problem. No one's going to want to work. Well, that's a different question.

I mean, whether or not they're going to physically want to be there rather. Maybe they want to work, but they're not going to want to go to the office. Yeah, I mean, maybe, although I think being present with people, feeling a sense of presence is pretty important, regardless of where you do it. I mean, I've found, over the last couple of years, the way that stuff that the work has been done has changed a huge amount.

There are all these things that are sort of complex about the office, but I see people in person almost every day. Sometimes I probably do more meetings in my house now than I would have before. But yeah, I don't know. I do think that there's seeing people in person having that sense of presence makes a big difference. I think so too, but there's definitely a big pushback now about people going to the office rather than working from home.

People would rather just do their work from home and they're like, with the internet connections as they are. Oh, yeah. And the ability to video conference, like, why do I have to be physically in the building in order to get my work done? Yeah, no, and I agree with that too. Our company is actually pretty forward leaning on remote work. And just especially some types of work, especially software engineering, you can do pretty well from a lot of different places.

And if you're an engineer, sometimes it's actually better to not be in the office because then people aren't bugging you. You kind of want like a block of like five hours where you can just work on a problem. And if, I don't know, it's like, I have this thing where, you know, it's, I'll be like in zone kind of flow concentration working on something. And you know, my wife will like ask me some, some like basic question. And I'll just be like, oh, man, it's like, I just like lost my flow.

And it's like, and like from her perspective, it's like, oh, not a big deal. It was a quick question, just go back to what you're doing. It's like, no, that's not how it works. But it's, but so I do think to some degree, having people be able to work remotely is actually pretty useful for a lot of things. But I think we'll need to find this mix. I think we'll need to find the mix. I physically run away from my wife when I have a joke idea. If she's talking and I have an idea, I'll just run away.

I just go, I got an idea. I just have to, like she gets it. So it's okay. But yeah, if I'm in the middle of writing and she comes in and interrupts, it's over. Yeah. Just gets shattered. So in some ways, well, you would have to have like a real quiet and secure place. But I think for a lot of people, the, just the wasted time commuting and all that, if you could eliminate that through AR or VR, some sort of a holiday system, just the stress of life would be so much better.

Yeah, I mean, that's been, for me, over the last couple of years with COVID and just kind of rethinking the way that stuff has worked. I think reducing the commute has been one of the big efficiencies. But also being able to, being able to live in different places has been nice.

And I spent a lot of time down in Kauai earlier on and I got like really into surfing and hydrofoiling and like, I just like wake up in the morning and go do that and then just be really refreshed and go do my full day of meetings, which is obviously not something I could do in in Palo Alto. Yeah. So I don't know. I'm pretty positive on all this.

I think if you can give people the ability to get there, they're kind of fluid state, like flow state work remotely, but then also just be able to kind of in a second teleport to a place and show up as a hologram and be present, I think that's pretty valuable. Now, that doesn't replace everything, right? I mean, you're, I mean, one of the things that I found is for, you know, larger meetings, one of the most useful things is not actually the meeting itself.

It's just getting a chance to catch up with people before and after the meeting, right? When you're in the hallway or something. Yeah. So, you know, yeah, I mean, there is, there's a downside to being so efficient about being able to teleport it in and out too, because you, you can kind of miss some of those casual downtime moments. But overall, yeah, I mean, I think it's just going to, it's going to create this kind of crazy amount of, of, of efficiency there.

Yeah. I think people are still going to crave real world experiences, no matter what, you know, obviously, I do stand up comedy. So obviously that experience, you must be there. Yeah. Like that's part of the fun is being in the room with people. But I can envision technology improving to the point where you could create a virtual comedy club. And you would see all the different people that have the headsets on in the room. Yeah. And you would probably get pretty close.

Like, there was a lot of people that did Zoom stand up during the pandemic and it was awful, because there was no audience. They were just basically like doing their act with no crowd. Like don't, don't do that. Yeah, don't do that. Yeah, you need the feedback. It's terrible. It's super awkward just doing public speaking. And not having any feedback. Well, if someone's just doing public feedback, there's like some really great podcasts where people just like Bill Burr just talks to himself.

It's just him ranting about life and stuff. And it's great. He doesn't necessarily need someone to bounce off of. But comedy is a different thing. Like comedy by itself with no audience is not good. Yeah. So there actually, there is already at least one experience like this that I'm aware of. So we've got horizon social platform. People can build worlds in it.

And it's like, it's pretty simple today, but it's designed to be this really easy world building platform and people can go and build stuff. And people built this thing called the Soapstone Comedy Club. And this is actually one of the stories that I've heard of people using VR that I think is really touching. So there's this woman who basically lost her son and was really sad and was grieving for a while. And comedy was just a really important outlet for her.

Which she had a lot of social anxiety around going and physically being in front of people and performing and doing it at a club. So she started doing it at the Soapstone Comedy Club and had a little bit more anonymity because it was in virtual reality. But she can feel a real sense of presence of other people there. And I mean, talking to her about it, it's like, it's been a real important experience for her to kind of be this creative outlet and help her get over this grieving that she's had.

It's not something maybe that she would have been comfortable having the full intensity experience of a physical comedy club. But you kind of got a bunch of the way there by feeling like you were present with people there. Hmm. My friend Brian Redban, he does this thing called virtual Redban. What does he do? He does like the go to diners and stuff like that. They set it up. VR chat.

Yeah. So he does it in Oculus and he has a bunch of his friends log on at the same time and they go into a room together and hang out. It's really interesting because I think that they're like to be able to have an online community where you go to a place and you all meet up and you're all like talking and hearing each other's voices. Yeah. And seeing the avatar moving like that alien avatar that you showed me today, it's very real looking. I mean, I clearly see that it's this animated thing.

But I would liken it to like an avatar like from the movie avatar, like the Navi. There's something cool about it where it's like, it's definitely a step above a lot of these things that I've seen in the past that's moving into this much more realistic sort of place where I could imagine a lot of people just deciding like today I'm going to be a penguin. I'm going to go to this diner and hang out these guys as a penguin and it's exciting. It's kind of fun.

Part of what's a little trippy about it is that in some way as some of these experiences I think feel more realistic than for example having a Zoom call where you can actually see the person's face. Because the way that our memory works, it's like it's very spatial. So when I leave here today, I'll remember that you were across from me and there's a symmetry. You're across from me so that means I'm across from you. We have a shared memory of kind of the space of the place.

And if I, well I guess it doesn't quite work as the headphones. Normally if you talk it's coming from that direction and spatial audio and kind of directional building a spatial model of things is how we make memories. So you take something like Zoom and it just completely blows that up because now it's every meeting that you have looked the same. And also there's no symmetry. So if you're in the top left of my box square, that doesn't mean that I'm in the same place for you.

We actually, we don't have any kind of shared spatial sense of that. And I don't know if you've had this experience, but I just kind of feel like if I do a day of Zoom calls, they all sort of blend together and I have a hard time remembering what meeting someone said something in. Where it is. Then you know what I'd say, if you go into VR, it's like okay, you have an avatar. It's obviously not super realistic yet. It'll get better and better over time as the computation gets better.

Although as an aside, I'm not actually convinced that even when we have photo realistic avatars, the people are going to prefer that to the expressive ones. But that's kind of a whole separate tangent that we can go down. I think you'll clearly want the ability to do both, have a photo realistic one and an expressive one.

But yeah, I mean, if you're sitting around and someone's a penguin or your friends are clearly cartoony, but you're sitting around a table and you have a shared sense of space and your friend is to your right, which means that you're to their left. And when they speak, you hear it coming from that direction. You actually remember the spatial sense of that in the same way that you would a physical thing, which I, it's just kind of getting all those details right over time.

I just think that there's, I mean, this to me, this is like some of the most exciting work that I've gotten to do in a while because I just feel like building social experiences on phones is so constrained. Right? In some ways, it's awesome because there's like billions of people that have phones. So I can, you know, we can build services that get used by billions of people around the world. And that's obviously rewarding and it's in its own way too.

But like having the ability to define what these next platforms are going to be and have them break out of these boxes that have been really weirdly defined, right? In terms of like these things, phones, computers, they were not designed for, for basically communication and interaction. They were designed for kind of work and, um, and certain computational workloads.

And so a lot of what I'm trying to do is like, okay, well, what does it look like to design the next computing platform in a way that's like really people centric? So if you were doing it in the way that like our brains worked and how we actually process the world and how we think about stuff and what matters to us, I don't think you'd build a platform that was designed on apps.

You'd build it where the fundamental, um, you know, unit of how you interact is, is around kind of people and, and how you express yourself. And, um, and you'd want to be able to like have an avatar and expression of your identity and be able to just jump between a bunch of different experiences rather than have everything be so siloed.

So, um, I don't think that this is, it's just like, it's a, it's pretty wild to try to build this off in the ground up because it's just this incredible breadth and, and amount of technology. And I mean, I often get criticized because we're, we're investing just this huge amount in this. Um, we're, we're going to spend this year alone more than $10 billion on, on all these different research streams. But the breadth of this is just like, extremely wide, right?

It's not like $10 billion is going towards any one specific thing. It's like, there's all the avatar work and all of how you express yourself and how you build the worlds. And then there's all the VR stuff. And within VR, we're working on this year's device and next year's device and the, and the one after that. And then in AR, we talked about, it's like we have the Rayband glasses and we have sort of the next version of that.

But then we also have kind of the, the research going towards the full AR. Um, and we haven't even gotten to neural interfaces yet, but we should definitely spend some time on that.

But it's like, you kind of go across all these different things and it's just this incredibly wide amount of technology that, that needs to get built in order to basically build and deliver a realistic sense of presence like you're physically there with another person which I just think is the most magical thing in the world. Well, it's very exciting. The idea that you could have an office in a jungle like you just, all of a sudden, we have, we're going to call this meeting together.

We're going to be on the moon. Yeah. Yeah. We're going to be next to a volcano. It's going to be a bubbling volcano right next to the desk. It's cool. Look, I love the fact that there's people like you out there doing it. It's expanding the possibilities for this stuff. But some neural interfaces. Yeah. What are your thoughts on that? Like where, where is that going and where are we at right now?

Yeah. So I think, you know, so go back to your comments about the matrix before I think when people think about neural interfaces or any interface, I think it's important to separate out there's sort of, there's feedback that you're giving to the computer and then there's information that the computer gives to you. And you can separate those two things out. So I actually think the super hard part here is going to be having a computer give you information straight into your brain.

And that's not a thing that we're working on. So some people, I mean, like Elon with Nurelink and those companies, I think it's, I mean, that's just taking this like super far off. I mean, maybe it'll be ready in like a couple decades. I mean, there were probably interesting use cases in the near term for people who have injuries or something like that.

But I think, you know, normal people, I think in the next 10 or 15 years are probably not going to want to get something just installed in their brain for fun is my guess. I don't want to be an early adopter. Yeah. I think you want like the mature version of that. Yeah. Not the one that where it's going to get a lot better next year and you need to like get your brain implant upgraded every year. So, but here's the kind of version of this that I spent a lot of time thinking about.

So you have AR glasses, right? And how are you going to control them? Right. I mean, how you kind of control any, any, any computation devices is obviously it's super fundamental to what the platform is. So you have a bunch of different modes. You know, one of them is going to be voice, right? You'll be able to talk to it. But that's not, that doesn't always work, right?

If you're in a public place or you want to be discreet or you want to just not annoy the people around you, you don't, you know, you're not going to want to dictate everything out loud. A second way is going to be, you know, using your hands. So let's say, okay, it's not my fingers. We have a chess game, right? Or a poker game. And, okay, here's, here's our chess board and I move a piece. It's like, okay, yeah, that'll do with my hands. That's kind of cool.

But like, you're not going to be walking down the sidewalk, like manipulating stuff with your hands. I mean, that I think I already reports. Yeah. I mean, I think at some basic level, if you can get past that just being weird, I think most people's hands will just get tired, right? It's, I mean, if you hold your hands out like this for a long enough period of time, eventually you want to put your hands down.

So the question is, how do you make it so that you can basically go and have your mind give commands to the computer, in this case, the glasses, without having to speak out loud, without having to wave your hands around, even though those things will be great for some use cases, you're not going to want them all the time. So the research that we're doing, it's based on the, it's basically, it's input only, and it's focused on, so it's not, it's not trying to send signals to your brain.

It's trying to make it so that your brain can communicate with the computer. And the path that we have is it's based on the fact that we have all these extra motor neurons in our body, right? And, and part of the reason for that is like, in case you get hurt, you have neuroplasticity, you can rewire, do stuff, like find a different pathway to kind of send a signal to move your finger or something.

There's all these different ways that it turns out our brain could tell this finger to move, but we've sort of optimized individually, kind of we, we kind of reinforce certain pathways and end up using one, one kind of motor neuron pathway to do a specific thing and you have all these others that are not that used. So it turns out you can have a device on your wrist that basically your brain can communicate with your hand, tell your hand to move in like a pattern that it isn't, isn't used to.

And then the, the wristband can sort of pick up those signals and translate them into completely different things like having a virtual hand move in front of you while your physical hand is just kind of sitting there at your side.

So you'll be able to have this experience in the future where like, you're sitting in a meeting and, you know, your wife texts you and it pops up in the corner of your glasses and you want to respond, but you don't want to like pull out your phone because that's kind of rude, right? So you just kind of like, I don't know, twitch your wrist a little bit, maybe like this, like some super discreet motion that no one even knows you're doing it and you're just like sent a message.

And that seems like a massive distraction. I mean, people are already distracted by their phones. Like when people get a text message and they're like, hang on a second, I just can't answer this real quick. And you're like, okay, and you're sitting there having lunch with someone and they're not talking to you anymore because they're looking at their phone. But now they're going to be looking at these AR glasses and just thinking out text messages.

And you won't even know that they're distracted. They're just going to be not connecting with you. I don't know. I actually think, I don't know, one experience that I think has been interesting since I've been doing more Zoom calls, especially earlier in the, in COVID.

One thing that I think actually was quite good or is quite good is the ability to both kind of have everyone here meeting with on video chat, but then also have a chat thread going with some of those people so that way, like, let's say there's something that you don't want to say to everyone who's in the room, but you want to ask one person, it's like, hey, can you clarify this thing that you said or you like don't want to say something in front of someone.

It's like, I have this issue a lot because there's a lot of confidential information that I have around the company. I don't want to share it with everyone, but I want to like get certain people's opinion on stuff. And if I'm doing a meeting and it's purely physical and like everyone is there, I found that, you know, sometimes I like have to wait until the meeting is over to go get the answer of the question that I wanted.

Whereas, when I was, if I'm kind of having a virtual meeting over Zoom or in VR and work rooms, you can just kind of text people while you're doing that. So I actually think that it will unlock a massive amount of efficiency and communication and expression between people to make it so people don't have to wait until they're done doing one thing to send a message to someone else.

But yeah, I mean, I do think that there's a separate question about if you have glasses and you're kind of going about, you know, it's one thing to have VR and you put it on when you want to go play a game or do a meeting.

In the kind of fullness of augmented reality, when you kind of have the glasses and you're going about that through your whole life, having some kind of really smart, do not disturb mode that has a sense of like, okay, this thing really shouldn't distract you when you're doing something important is going to be, that's going to be a really important AI problem too. I think to be able to kind of simulate and understand.

Because I don't think it's going to be as black and white as like, do not disturb on or off, right? I think you like, you want some intelligence there about, you know, routing and kind of understanding which things you're going to want to get and which things not. And maybe have certain people at priority, like if you're wife or your family is trying to get a whole of you, they can get through, but business people can't get through. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I worry about additional distractions.

I mean, I do not keep my children from social media because I feel like the world that they live in has social media in it and I don't want them to be just completely disconnected from that. I limit the amount of time they use their phones and I try to talk to them about the importance of not being like completely absorbed in social media and these kind of things that these kids do.

But I think it's a part of life and I think it's new and it's weird and it's confusing and it can be very addictive, but I also think it's a part of life. But going out to dinner with them is so hard. They just want to check their like, hey, put your phone down. Stop snapping with your friends. They're always snapchatting. I'm like, stop, stop doing that. It's like, well, we got to stop that. Yeah. It's like, just got to put it aside. Just put it aside.

But if you have glasses on, that's going to be very difficult. It's going to be very difficult to get people to, you know, especially if glasses have social media applications and also offer some sort of a benefit, like a net benefit to like the way you view life, like maybe give you information on the amount of calories that are if you pick up a food item like what is that? What is that? Oh my God, it's got that oil in it. That's not good for you.

Or, you know, other benefits, but also have social media. You're going to come into this like sort of a weird place where you have to figure out whether or not this is a positive thing in your life, or whether or not it's overcoming and you're overwhelmed by it. Yeah, and I think that that's something that it's going to end up being this balance. And hopefully our computers and platforms will help us find the reasonable balance on that.

I mean, one of the things that you keep that you've said a few times is, okay, like, I'm not sure if I'd want to do this digitally. I think about, like, it's like, I want to have this experience in the real world. Yeah. I mean, here's one kind of philosophical way that I think about this is, I actually think when you say the real world, I call that the physical world. And I think there's the physical world and the digital world.

And I think the combination of those increasingly is the real world, right? It's, you know, it's like, there's all this additional information that we bring to the physical experiences that we have that whether it's, whether it's digital or just from our own experience or studying that we've done, that's more than just kind of the physical kind of sensation that we get. But the ratio of that may be shifting over time, right?

So in the world in the future where, you know, a lot of the things that might be physical today, I mean, maybe these, this kind of art and sculptures and stuff that you have here, maybe in the future they're not physical, maybe they're just holograms because, you know, you can change them really easily.

Maybe over time the sort of ratio of the amount of physical stuff that we interact with to digital stuff shifts and becomes more balanced or something like that, whereas, you know, historically it was all physical and there was very little kind of information or digital overlay on top of it. And now I think it just steadily been increasing.

But I mean, it's, I think it's probably going to be a lot healthier for us rather than consuming kind of all this additional context through this tiny little portal that we carry around on a phone and you're just kind of like looking at this and you're missing the whole context. I think to have it be able to be overlaid and, you know, have kind of people be able to you know, pop in and interact with them through it. I don't think that's going to be powerful.

We'll obviously need to get the balance on this right. But it's, but I know that's sort of how I think about it. I think like probably the right way to think about the real world is that this point is not actually just the physical world. But the physical world, I'm probably more kind of optimistic or believe that the physical world is probably more important to our being and essence and soul than a lot of other people in the industry.

So I mean, I really care about about getting that balance right. I think the balance is important, but I think you're correct. I think there is an ever increasing landscape of digital world that's undeniable in it's a part of life now. And as the technology improves, it's going to be a bigger and bigger part of life. I wouldn't say my fear is, but my thoughts are that we're going to lead to a time someday where people become fully immersed 24-7 in a non-physical world.

And I think that's the matrix and that's what people are worried about it. That as this technology advances, especially with some sort of neural interface, that we're going to get to a place where we're not really here anymore or there always. How many people are on? How do you limit your social media use? How do you do it? Me personally, I mean, I'm just doing so many things that in practice, there aren't as many hours in the day.

And my kids, I haven't had to think about it quite as much yet because they're pretty young. Six and five. Right? Lucky just turned five this weekend. But it's, I mean, they use, I actually, I want them to use technology for different things. I mean, I teach them how to code. I think it's an outlet for creativity. I mean, Augie especially, I mean, she max likes building things. Augie thinks about it as art. So whenever you know, every night, I try to do bedtime with them religiously.

So I try to end my meetings in order to be able to put them down. And I ask them, what activity they want to do? Do you want to read or do you want to wrestle or whatever that. Or, and Augie's just like, I want to do code art. It's like, oh, that's such an interesting way to think about it. I always think about coding as like you're building something and she just thinks about it as making the computer make art.

So it's just like it's, so, anyway, I think it's, um, I think it's good for them to get that exposure. But I don't know, these things, it's not. Everything that you're doing on a computer or screen isn't the same. There's a lot of research into wellbeing that shows that there's like, are you actively engaging and are you engaging with a person? Are you building relationships or are you just consuming?

And if you're, if you're building a relationship, then that is associated typically with a lot of long term benefits and wellbeing, right? Because I mean, the relationships that we have in our lives, I view that as like the meaning, right? That's like that, that to me is like the point and that I think over time is what generally creates happiness for people and, um, and prosperity.

But um, if you're just sitting there and consuming stuff, I mean, it's, it's not necessarily bad, but it generally isn't associated with all the positive benefits that you get from being actively engaged or building relationships. Right. Engage with people actively online and build digital relationships and especially as as technology improves, you could actually have meaningful experiences with someone's avatar. Yeah. So I'm very weird.

So I just want to make it so that, that the experiences that we're having aren't just these like passive things. So for, for my perspective, there's this like, you know, people spend a lot of time with screens today. It's, you know, basically computers, phones and TVs. And I'm always amazed because I spend all my time on phones and computers that for Americans still almost half the time that they spend on screens as TV is more than the more than phones or computers. So really? I mean, yes.

I mean, it's, I think it might have just tipped to being in the last few years to being, you know, more phones and computers than TV, but TV is huge. Because I know like Netflix and YouTube, I think a giant amount of the stuff is on phones. Uh, it's a lot on, yeah, a lot on phones, but it's a lot on TVs too. And a lot of people are still just watching, you know, cable or different things like that.

And so when you think about new experiences, I actually think the first thing that they're going to go do is eat TV, right? And like, and kind of the more passive things. So you know, and when, when people talk about being worried about, you know, the time that people are spending and different kind of social experiences, I mean, the time has to come from somewhere. I think it's worth looking at where it's coming from. If it's coming from sleep, that's probably not great. Right?

If it's coming from exercise, like I wouldn't be that happy with that. If it's coming from TV, I'm pretty fine with that. Right? I think like, I mean, that's actually maybe a net improvement in well-being for people overall. If you're shifting from this more beta kind of consuming state to just being actually actively engaged, potentially building relationships. And there's just a ton of TV time to eat, right?

So I think before we worry about this kind of consuming more and more people's time, I actually just think looking at the mix of what people do today is good. And my goal for these next set of platforms, they are going to be more immersive. And hopefully they'll be more useful. But I don't necessarily want the people to spend more time with computers. I just want the time that people spend with screens to be better.

Because I mean, today so much of it is like, you're just sitting around in this like beta state consuming stuff. And I think that that's like, I don't know. I mean, so you ask me, how do I control my own social media time or my time on this stuff? I do a bunch of social media. I do a lot of messaging. I really don't watch that much TV. And that's because I just don't have that much, I don't know, I find it to, it puts me in this really weird mental state.

Unless there's something that I'm just like really attached to. Right? And I really like watching like UFC, for example, bets because I also like doing the sport. So it's like I have some kind of connection to it. But I don't know, just like sitting around watching it's, I don't usually like get into like a lot of TV shows or something. Have you always been a very physical person? Because I follow you on Instagram. Yeah. I see wakeboarding and stuff. Yeah. You're very active.

Like, which I think is very, it's a great message too. It's great for you, but it's also a great message for the people that, here's this guy who's incredibly busy. And his life is overwhelmed with technology. And yet he's constantly doing physical things and using his body and exercising and getting out in nature. Yeah. I mean, I think it's something that my parents really stressed for me early on. They're like, are my parents push me pretty hard?

They're like, you're going to do well in school and you're going to be on three of our city sports teams. And like, and it's just, and like, and you know, a lot of other stuff. Yeah, but I mean, like that, you don't have any debate. It's it. No, it's just a rule. So, it's like, that's, that's just what you're going to do. So, and I'm super grateful for it. I mean, they weren't very prescriptive. Right? I mean, they didn't tell me I had to do computers.

They didn't tell me which sports I had to do, but they're like, this is important. But I don't know. I mean, I've found it, especially as the company has scaled and in some ways become more stressful. It's like more important. Right? It's, and my sort of day is like, it's a guy you wake up in the morning, look at my phone, get like a million messages, right, of stuff that come in. It's usually not good, right?

It's, I mean, people, people like, people reserve the good stuff to tell me in person, right? Right. So, but it's like, okay, what's going on in the world that I need to kind of pay attention to that day or so it's almost like every day you wake up and you're like punched in the stomach. And then it's like, okay, well, fuck. Now I need to like go reset myself and be able to kind of be productive and not be stressed about this. How do I do that?

I go, I like, I read, I take in all the information and then I go do something physical for an hour or two and just kind of reset myself. And over time what I've found is that it's not actually just, I used to run a lot, but the problem with running is you can think a lot while you're running. So I have, especially over the last couple of years I've gotten really into things that require full focus.

So you know, at the beginning of COVID, I mentioned that I spent a bunch of time in Kauai or family as a ranch down there. And like I spent a lot of time foiling and surfing and it's like if you're foiling or surfing and you're on like a wave, you have to pay attention the whole time, right? Or else you're going to fall and maybe get held under and it's like not, that's not a great experience. I don't know if you surf. No, I don't. But I tried foiling. I'm an Oaf. I couldn't get on the thing.

And my young daughter is really good at it, my 12 year old. And she just zooms around and gets on that thing and I just, I couldn't figure it out. Yeah. It's, it's um, you're talking about the efoil for that. Yeah, that it's, I bet if you tried it for like a few days, you get it down pretty well. Yeah, yeah. I tried it for about three hours. And I was like, oh my god, this is awful. But the actual foiling, not the efoil. I mean, the efoil weighs like 40 pounds.

An actual foil board, maybe weighs like five to 10 pounds. So and after you learn how to foil, flying an efoil is like, it feels like you're flying a tank through there or something. But it's like, but it's, um, it's a pretty interesting learning curve, but it's requires full engagement the whole time. Yeah. And then, I mean, that's sort of, this is sort of, this is cleansing.

Yeah. Yeah. And this is sort of how I got into MMA too is after, you know, now, now I don't spend as much time in Kauai because things are ramping back up and I'm in the office a lot more. So it's a guy there's, there's not as much foiling in in Palo Alto. So it's a guy, what's a thing that is both like just super engaging physically, but also intellectually and where you can't afford to focus on something else?

And I think to some degree, it's like MMA is like the perfect thing because it's like, if you don't, like you, you, you, you stop paying attention for one second, you're going to end up on the bottom. Yeah. Right. So, um, so it's, so I, I've just found that that is.

It's really important for me in terms of like what I do and being able to just kind of maintain my energy level, maintain my focus because then like after, you know, an hour or two of, of working out or, you know, rolling or wrestling with friends or, you know, training with, with different folks, it's like, now I'm ready to go solve whatever problem it work for the day. I fully processed all the different news for the day that's, that's come in and, um, and we're just ready to go.

How did you get introduced to martial arts training? Like how long ago was this? Uh, it was in the last 12 months actually. Really? Yeah, because it was basically, I kind of, I used to just run a lot and, and, and just do that. And then it was, and then basically since COVID, it's like got super into surfing and foiling, then got really into MMA. So how did you, uh, how did you initially approach it? Like, how did you get a trainer? Like, what did you do?

Um, I, you know, I know a bunch of people who are, who are into it. There's actually this really interesting connection between people who surf and do jujitsu. Oh, yeah. So a lot of, lots of merities.

So, um, so a bunch of the guys who I, who I do that with, um, you know, they, they kind of have gyms and, and Kauai and, you know, I, you know, basically collected a bunch of recommendations, ran them by a bunch of people who I know and, um, and I, I ended up, um, I mean, I trained with this guy, Dave Camerillo. I know Dave. Yeah, and Gorilla, jujitsu. Yeah. Yeah. So, and he's awesome. He's great.

Yeah. Super nice guy and, um, I, I feel like I'm learning a ton and the crazy thing is like, I've, um, I don't know. I mean, it's, it really is the best sport. I don't, the question isn't, how did I get into it? It's, how did I not know about it until just now from, from, from like, from the, from the very first session that I did, like five minutes in, I was like, where has this been my whole life?

I like, it's like, all right, my mom made me do three varsity sports and like my life took a wrong turn when I chose to do fencing competitively instead of wrestling in high school or something, right? It's like, like, it's like, there's something that's just so primal, um, about it. I don't, I don't know.

It's, it's, and I've, since then I've just introduced a bunch of my friends to it and that's been really fun because now it's like, we train together and we just like wrestle together and just, I don't know, there's like a certain intensity to it that I, um, that I, I like and it's, it's sort of, I don't know, maybe it's like, there's this cultural thing where, where maybe a lot of people haven't considered it.

But I've had a hundred percent hit rate of introducing friends to it and converting them to people who now train. Every single person who, who I've like, who I've, who I've kind of shown it to is like, this is amazing. This is like, obviously how I should be training and working out. Yeah. That's very impressive that it's 100 percent.

You must have some solid friends because a lot of people get turned off by the amount of effort that's involved, but they get excited by the, the, the problem solving, which is the, the more fascinating part, like learning the techniques and focusing on memorizing techniques and developing skills and then drilling, like, uh, that's probably one of the most important things about Jiu Jitsu that people don't do enough of is drilling.

Like, I made my, some of my biggest leaps in martial arts from like Blue Belt to Purple Belt just through constant drilling. I was drilling all the time with my friend Eddie Bravo. So we were always working on techniques. And so I was able to like progress much quicker. And then I noticed when I stopped doing that later, my progress kind of stagnated.

It's like there's a, there's a real clear correlation between the amount of energy you put into drilling and, uh, observing the technique and then just going through the motion with like someone offering like 20 percent, 30 percent resistance. Yeah. It's not as fun. Like sparring is the most fun. Like immediately one just slap hands and start rolling. It's fun. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. I mean, I'm, I, I mean, I really trust Dave and I'm, I, I, I think it's also, you're Dave's great.

Yeah. And I'm also just depending on what's going on in, in my life and work that day. Like some days I, like have the energy to go spar and some days it's good to just go drill. And you know, it's like, all right, there's a lot going on. There's, um, you know, I, it's, it's better to just go do something like 20 times in a while. Both things are important. Both things are important. But if you can force yourself to drill more than you spar, you'll get better. Yeah. It's really important.

It's like the most important thing. And it's the thing that people do the least of. Because like to really like carve those pathways in your mind, like when someone is in this position, you do that. And then you immediately get your knee in position, you shift your hips. It's just, it gets driven into your, your programming so that in the flow of an actual rolling session, it just happens. Yeah. You see Tom Hardy just won a bunch of fun. I did. I did. And then Marty is like an ass kicker.

Him and Mario Lopez are out there competing in Jiu-Jitsu tournaments. Like this is wild. And they're both like beginners. They're both like blue belts. I'm like, that's incredible. Well, maybe I'll get there for my 40th birthday. You should do it. It boarded in did it. He did it when he was like, God, I think it was like 60. I just think it's a tournament. I mean, I do a lot of stuff like this with friends, but I also just find like wrestling around with friends is. It's fun. Yeah. It's fun.

Yeah. Let's see, it was even more fun because it's like wrestling with like finishes. Yeah. Yeah. I'm excited that you're into it. It's really cool. And I think, you know, it really enhances your enjoyment of watching it on television because you know what's happening. But there's also like a lot of good parallels, I think, in philosophy for life and work and all that.

I mean, I think I mean, both surfing and foiling and Jiu-Jitsu MMA, it's like, I think it sort of teaches you about like the flow and momentum of things.

And I think businesses like this in a similar way where it's like, the hardest thing is knowing when you're in a position where you need to push through versus sort of developing the intuition for when like, all right, when the momentum is just going in the other direction, it's like, all right, you're not going to be able to pump over this swell. You know, it's just, it's, you know, if you keep your weight in this direction, you're going to get swept, right?

I do think, I mean, it's a super concrete thing. I think one of the things that's sort of frustrating or running a company is like the feedback loops are so long, right? It's like, all right, so I showed you the, you know, the pre-release version of the new VR headset that we're building. It's like, we've been working on that for years. And now it's like, so basically the ideas that went into that, and there's obviously a lot of problem solving even up until now to kind of get it to work well.

But the basic principles of, okay, what, what like big features are we going to prioritize? I mean, made those decisions years ago. And we're not going to know if that's right until maybe a year from now until we see how that goes. So there's something that I think is sort of, it's difficult in running an enterprise of that scale to like try to learn from things that's such a long, like a, such kind of a long interval.

And it's something that I just find super rewarding is having these parts of what I get to do on a day to day basis, where you're learning about like, you get to push on the world or push on other people and get to kind of see how that goes, like a second later instead of four years later, right? Right. It's a guard, am I going to be able to like go turn that direction on that wave or am I just going to get swallowed? Right. So it's, I don't know.

It's, I think that having that mix in your life is, it feels really important and healthy to me. And I'm going to try to get my friends into it. I have my kids do, do do do do do do. I just think it's like really important that they kind of develop all these, all these skills and appreciation for doing physical things, just like my parents taught me. But I don't know, it's, I guess overall it's like a big part of, I don't know, it's a big part of what I, of who I am, I think.

I mean, going back to the other conversation about like, are we just brains and tanks? It's like, no, because this is like the part of, you know, my life that I think is, it's like, this is super fun. Like the, like the, the building things, it's like, that's super engaging too. It's just, it's like a very different type of intellectual exercise. What's also the one on one physical connection with a person?

I would imagine that your life has got to be very bizarre because you are the head of this enormous platform and you're dealing with so many human beings and so much negativity and positivity and all kinds of fires that you have to put out and all sorts of chaos and to just have one thing, one person right in front of you is probably really good to sort of clean the pipes out. Yeah. Just like clear your mind and have your ability to focus on things, sort of like put into perspective.

Yeah. That it's got to be very unman, I mean, I don't know, I've talked to people about this before, whenever people talk about like social media sites and they're doing this and they're doing that, I'm like, could you imagine trying to manage at scale, five billion people or whatever it is? How many people are on Facebook right now? Facebook is almost three billion but across our different properties, it's like a little more than three and a half billion. That's so many people.

Yeah. That's impossible. No one can manage five billion people or three billion people or a billion. It's like the numbers are just, they're so absurd. It's so preposterous. It doesn't make any sense. So I would imagine that for your mind, the amount of pressure that's involved in just maintaining, it has to be like looming over you at all times in the background. It's probably very difficult for you to find things that filter that out. Yeah, I mean, there's always stuff to work on.

Right. So I think a big part of trying to push forward is maintaining enough control of my time to push on the things that I believe need to be advanced for the future rather than being reactive. If my day is primarily consumed with just reacting to things that people are throwing at me, I mean, I can spend all of my time a thousand times over just reacting to all the things that people throw at me and I still wouldn't get through the whole list.

By the way, I think that that's probably a somewhat extreme version because I'm running this company. But I actually think this is probably true for everyone. I think pretty much every person, I think, has a lot that gets thrown at them and you could spend all of your time just reacting to that.

And I think a lot of what kind of creates the ability to be successful long term and to build things and change your life and build products that change other people's lives is carving out the time to do stuff that's proactive. And that's both taking care of yourself, right? And kind of being physical and getting out there and also getting to spend time with my family and my girls and all that.

But it's also, I mean, I could spend all of my time just working on the things that we've already built and not trying to advance this vision for the future. But balancing that is important. I also spend a ton of time on all the social media pieces of what we're building. It's like, they're nowhere near done, right? And there are some awesome evolutions that are happening there with enabling more creators and enabling more people to have a voice there.

I mean, the creative economy has sort of exploded over the last few years. And I think it's just at the beginning of like sort of hopefully remaking a lot of the economy for the country and the world so that way more people can pursue creative endeavors. I think that that's just going to be one of the most positive trends that comes out of this decade. So I agree with you 100% on that. It's really an amazing time for people to be able to carve out an alternative living.

And to do so through social media platforms and there's so many people like using all the platforms that have developed these followings and started businesses and whether it's in fitness or there's people that are just chefs that they cook online and they share and sell recipes. Yeah, it's amazing. Yeah, I mean, and one of the things that I really admire about what you do is, it seems like you have a real commitment to giving a voice to a lot of different types of people.

It feels like a big part of your your theme is, you have a lot of people on the show who wouldn't just know where like no chance that they get the exposure that they get from talking to you elsewhere. And part of the question that I wonder about is in Instagram and in Facebook, you have your follow graph, right? You have your, you know, the people you choose to follow and you have your friends.

But can we build AI systems that can also just help recommend better content that you didn't know to follow yet because it's kind of it's, it's, you know, it's up your alley. It's like aligned with the type of things that you care about, your values, your interests. And I just view that kind of confluence of building, it's a very specific AI problem. It's not like this kind of general intelligence AI problem.

But I tend to think about things in terms of, you know, more specific problems that you can break down and try to deliver value for people. But I think, you know, I just love it if in a couple of years, a significant, not the majority, but a significant part of the Instagram and Facebook experiences were basically highlighting different creators who you might be interested in, but might have not otherwise seen.

And I think that that would both be good for people who are using those experiences to like discover more people, get, get more diversity of input into their lives. But also I think can help push that, that creative economy forward. It's, I don't know, that's one of the things that I'm, I'm super passionate about right now. Well, having an algorithm like that can really help. Like one of the things that Spotify does really well is suggest new music.

Yeah. So if you like a certain, I love how they do that where you, if you like a certain kind of music and you develop these playlists, they'll start recommending you music. And I found out about so many different bands that I would never know about before. I think it's really, the thing that gets people with algorithms is that algorithms today have this negative connotation to them.

And people, there's a lot of argument that algorithms cause dissent and cause arguments and cause strife and that people are focusing only on the things that upset them. But the real problem with that is that they're not taught how to think and focus on things cause with algorithms pick up on is essentially what are you spending the most time on? Well, if you're spending the most time on carpentry and parasailing and deep sea fishing, that's what the algorithm is going to recommend to you.

Like my friend Ari, we went through this experiment where only Google puppies and the only YouTube puppies and that's all they recommended them. Like YouTube videos was all just puppies. And he's like, see all this stuff that people are saying, oh, the algorithms are tearing us apart. Like, no, we're tearing us apart. The algorithms just highlight the things that you're interested in.

It's not like the algorithms, some tricky program designed by the Communist government to try to get you to argue with each other. No, you're arguing. You like to argue. Yeah, I mean, I think that the algorithms can also obviously be designed better or worse. So one of the things that I'm pushing on a lot right now is there's this idea in designing recommendation systems of explore versus exploit.

And it's like, okay, if someone has spent a bunch of time searching for puppies, you know they like puppies. So if you show them a puppy video, they'll probably engage with that. But if you only show them puppy videos over the long term, you're missing an opportunity to understand what other things that they're interested in.

So even though it might not be kind of ideal for the experience today, carving off, you know, 5%, 10% of basically the experience to just try to expose people to different things to see if they're interested in that too ends up paying long term dividends. So I do think that like these systems done well.

If you design them with a long term perspective and you're not just trying to kind of maximize engagement today, but you're really trying to understand what people care about and who people want to become and what their values are, I think you can build some stuff that gets really good over time. But I do think that the design of the system and the values that go into it matters quite a bit too. I think so too. I'm not neither pro nor con algorithms or recommendations.

I think it's a fascinating aspect of social media. But I do think that there are certain people that unfortunately when they get excited about a thing or when they start going online, they generate, they gravitate towards things that irritate them and upset them.

And that's the big concern that many people have with algorithms and with the use of social media, Twitter in particular, is that people are, it's that people are using it and getting upset and it's creating more tension and more of a divide. Yeah, I mean, I think it's interesting to think about these services, not just in terms of the information that is conveyed, but as a product designer, a big part of what you're designing is the emotional experience that people have using it.

So like I just don't want to build something that makes people super angry. Right. And I think that these things have different charges to them. Right. I mean, Twitter, I agree. It's like you're on it and it's the plus side of it is that you get all these people who are super witty and are saying super insightful things, but a lot of them are very cutting, right? And like, and I find that it's hard to spend a lot of time on Twitter without getting too upset.

On the flip side, I think Instagram is a super positive space. It's almost, I think some of the critique that we get there is that it's very curated and potentially in some ways overly positive, but I think the energy on Instagram is generally very positive and it's easy to spend time there and just absorb a lot of the positivity. I think that's true, but how did that happen? Why is the Instagram generally friendly?

I mean, so I think that it's the design of the system, but one thing is I think images are a little less cutting usually and kind of critical than text. I think the news in general is often negative. I think the incentives of the news industry are often to, well, I think just the mission of the news industry is to kind of speak truth to power and highlight things, like hold people accountable.

So I think that even if you're looking at it from that perspective, I think a lot of the stuff is like it's generally has this very critical tone to it. And, but like with everything, there's just a balance. If you spend your whole life living in criticism, then that's super negative. But I think that, you know, what we've tried to do with Facebook is have a little bit of both, right? It was Facebook has images and videos, but it also has news.

And the part of it that's probably the most critical where we probably have the most controversies around them or newsy type stuff, the more political type stuff. And over time, I mean, I've generally just felt like, hey, that's not even what people in our community tell us that they want, right? People say that they come here because they want to connect with other people and explore interests. And so I just want to emphasize that more of it.

But, but like there's some very intentional decisions that you can make in terms of designing this stuff. Well, now on Facebook, when you're reacting to a post, in addition to liking it, you know, you can, you can heart it, you can like give it kind of an angry emotion.

And one of the decisions that we've basically made is if someone makes, if someone kind of gives an angry reaction, we actually don't even count that in terms of whether to show that to, to someone else or maybe we even discounted, right? So it's, you could kind of view it as, okay, someone chose that they, that they, like, were interested in this post and chose to give an angry reaction, but we just don't want to amplify anger, right?

That's like not what not, not what I kind of view us as here to do. So we're just going to basically take that signal and like, not use it to, to show, to show the post to more people. So how do you do that? Like, how do you decide, like, what if it's anger, but it's justifiable anger? Yeah, I think that this is, that's exactly the right question.

Um, is, is basically, you know, when, when, when I was making that decision internally, um, a bunch of teams, like, well, you know, there is a lot of stuff that's wrong in the world and people should be angry about that. And it's like, yeah, I think that that's probably, that's fair. But I'm not here to design a service that makes people angry, right? So, like, so I kind of think that there's a balance and it's not like there's not going to be any angry stuff.

I mean, people can still react and say that something is, is negative that they don't like it, but, but I don't view our job as, is going and, you know, needing to kind of amplify all that stuff. So why do you have the option to have an anger response? Well, I think it's good for people to be able to convey it. I just think it's like a thumbs down. Yeah. It's like an angry emoji, angry emoji face.

And so obviously there's the option to have angry comments, which is just people's ability to express themselves. Yeah. Yeah. So basically choose to, if someone likes something or if a friend chooses to share something, we use that as a signal to say, hey, this might be something that you're interested in because someone reacted to this, right? It's like a friend had had some kind of emotional reaction to this and thought it was interesting enough to engage with.

So you might also think it's interesting to engage with. But we try to intentionally mute the kind of angry reactions just because that's just not what I'm not what we're trying to, trying to do in the world. I appreciate that. But what do you think about the argument that algorithms in general, because the fact that they sort of appeal to human nature, like they amplify the things that you're interested in and unfortunately people are interested oftentimes in things that upset them?

What do you think about the argument that this is to, whether it's too influential or it has too much impact on people and that a better solution would be to just let everything exist how it exists and don't have any kind of algorithm and let people find what they find and share what they share and just let it exist in sort of the free market of ideas. Yeah. So we actually started there, right? Because at the beginning we didn't have the technology to do this kind of ranking.

And the very first thing that you run into is if you don't do any kind of ranking, the system gets game in different ways. So if you're not ranking anything, the most recent stuff shows up at the top. So okay, so what do you get? You get a bunch of businesses that want to make sure that you see their stuff so they just post constantly. They post like 50 times a day. So they've always posted something within the last 10 or 20 minutes. That way it's always at the top of feed.

The other thing that you get is like, you miss obviously really important stuff. All right, so like my cousin is pregnant and when she has a baby, she's going to post about that and like that post better be at the top of my feed because I don't want to miss that. Right?

It's like I want that update and like, and we know that that's valuable, even without knowing the, even if we don't understand the kind of specific content of what, what, what she posted, there's going to be a ton of people commenting, congrats and, you know, a ton of hearts and positive reactions. So that's the question there. Like how does that, you enter into the algorithm.

Like if you're going to favor something like your cousin's baby being born, how would you go about doing that and how, how do you, how does the AI figure out that your cousin just had a baby and that this should be in all the people that follow her or should be in all their feeds because they would want to know, yeah, she had the baby.

Yeah, I mean, I think a lot of it is just, there's a lot of signals that go into it, but at a simple level, you can kind of just look at who are the people who you care about and what do they find interesting? So what are they commenting on? What are they clicking on? What are they liking or harding? Those are some of the big signals, right?

And then there's, there's some kind of content-based stuff like we have a sense that you're interested in this type of thing or that you really hate politics or whatever. So we're going to show you a little bit less of that. But in general, the thing that will differentiate that cousin's baby was just born post is that even if our system has no idea what the post means, that post will almost certainly just have a ton of likes and comments on it that have a positive reaction.

So that will just tell us, okay, if your friends made 500 posts today, that's the one that has the most kind of positivity around it, we should probably show that more prominently. So I think at a basic level, a system that didn't do that stuff would clearly be an inferior system, right? You don't want businesses spamming and you don't want to miss obviously important stuff.

Could, is there a way to stop businesses from spamming that you could just limit the amount of times that you could post in a day? There are a bunch of things like this that we've tried over time. But then you start getting into some things that are basically pretty algorithmic or rules-based, which is like, you start trying to rank stuff based on the quality of the posts, or how much engagement they make. I mean, I guess you could tell people they can't share more than this amount.

But I don't know. It kind of feels to me like you want to create a system. There are certain creators who do pump out a large amount of content. And I'm not sure that you want to stop that. I think you just want a system that can basically titrate it and show people the amount of it that they're interested in. It's such an immense responsibility and the fact that it's a private company in some ways trouble some people because you have this ability to control the flow of information.

And that's really never existed before where there's been like obviously social media is very new. That's never existed before. And then having a company that's run by human beings that have the ability to decide what gets broadcast, what gets its signal amplified, what gets suppressed. All that stuff is very, it concerns a lot of people because it's basically just individual human beings with their own biases and their own perspectives and their own view of the world.

And they have the ability to either slow down or ramp up or suppress or amplify so many different ideas. And in turn, that can literally shape the way the cultural narrative goes on any given subject. What is it like having that kind of responsibility? Because it seems to me that that would be an immense burden. That would be like a lot of thought would be involved in like what are the negative consequences of the choices that we make? What are the positive consequences of the choices we make?

Because as you said, you're controlling the signal of three plus billion people that is so astounding to even say. Well, I think the important thing is that I don't exactly look at it the way that you said. I view our job as empowering people to be able to express what they want and get the content that they want. And whenever we try to exert some kind of opinion that's different from what people want, our products do worse. And we exist in a very competitive space.

I mean, we have TikTok that's growing incredibly quickly. There's a whole lot of other companies we talked about Twitter before. You talked about Snap. You know, YouTube is huge and people spend a ton of time on it and there's just like new social products all the time. So if we don't empower people and help people get what in advance their own goals, then we lose over time.

So I kind of think that that, you know, obviously serving a lot of people is a big responsibility and we take that super seriously. But we also appreciate and respect that this is like a very competitive marketplace. And our role in it is not to kind of imprint our opinion, but to empower people. And that's sort of the ethos where we started the companies. I mean, the initial mission statement is give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected.

And we've evolved that over time to now making it around building community and bringing people and bringing the world closer together. But it's fundamentally that notion of giving people the power and empowering people is like really deep in the ethos of the company. And I think whenever we mess that up, which we do frequently, we pay the price for it. And people don't like those things that we do and then we have to run them back. That goes back to managing its scale, right?

Because it's just dealing with so many different people. But what I'm saying essentially is like, I do agree that you are giving people the ability and the power to express themselves. And if you don't do it correctly, they're going to go to the competitors. But it's still an immense responsibility. If there are choices being made as to like what gets amplified, what gets suppressed, what gets removed from the platform.

And I'm sure there has to be some pretty intense conversations about how this is managed and handled. And the burden of that must be tremendous. Yeah, I mean, there are a lot of different parts of what you just said. I mean, I think in terms of kind of helping people discover the things that they want, I think that's a pretty different wing of what we do than the policy setting of what is not allowed, which I think is, isn't a lot of ways.

I think a more controversial piece because in what's not allowed, you have to get into the nuances of specific types of content. Whereas in terms of the recommendation systems, you kind of want to build those to be agnostic of the type of content, right? It's like, I don't, like if I see that a team is trying to promote some type of content over another, they're almost certainly doing something wrong that is going to make us worse than a competitor in terms of effectiveness of our product.

Because you should just build this technology in a way that is agnostic and lets people express the interests and things that they want and gives them that. And then every once in a while, I think that there are some editorial decisions that often they're important enough that I have to make them, right? Like that thing that we talked about before, which is like, I just don't want there to be as much anger. So we're going to like not take into account the angry reaction.

You know, it's probably the case that there would be more engagement on the platform if we didn't. And people are expressing something and we're choosing to not listen to that thing. So it's some level that probably makes the product somewhat less engaging, but that's an example of an editorial decision that it's like, it's some level, you know, we're here not just to focus on what content people see, but the kind of emotional sense.

But I try to make those very few just because the technology can enable a vast breadth of interests that different people have. And I think part of how you build something that can serve billions of people is by not telling people what to think, right?

And basically having humility and basically, I don't just valuing humanity and like in valuing that people can believe different things and that those beliefs are probably grounded in real lived experiences that they had and aren't the result of them being tricked or something like that, they believe what they believe for a reason and it's kind of good to generally let people express that. I don't know, that's a pretty deeply helped belief that I have.

One of the things that's got to be bizarre about having a platform like Facebook is that you know that there are foreign actors that are utilizing the platform to either spread propaganda or to start arguments or you know, we read once that I think it was 19 of the top 20 Christian sites on Facebook were run by a troll farm. I didn't see that one. It's pretty crazy.

The amount of resources that are put into creating fake pages or pages that don't really represent real people but promote certain ideologies or certain political agendas and that they'll use these and start arguments with people and you don't even realize the people who think they're arguing with real people and they're reading the opinions of real people. Meanwhile there's a guy with a bank of phones in Macedonia. Yeah, no, so we call this 19 of 20 Christian Facebook pages are fake.

Yeah, so we call what you're talking about coordinated and authentic behavior. So basically these are coordinated and authentic behaviors. It's basically coordinated. Right, it's like yeah, it's some of these policy acronyms that we come up with. They have to be very specific. But basically we have a team of hundreds of counterterrorism and counterintelligence people who basically try to look for these different signals to find.

Like you said, a lot of this is, I mean that one that you were just mentioning, I don't know who is behind those fake pages. But in the Macedonian troll farms, we're basically a bunch of spammers who created fake pages and they want people to click on them so they can make money from the ads. So that one's actually pretty easy to disrupt because you just make it so that they can't use the ads to monetize anymore and their whole economic incentive goes away and they sort of dry up.

Dealing with nation states is a lot harder because they're more kind of ideological or you know sovereignty motivated. So there, I think you just kind of need to be very vigilant and it's more of an arms race and you just kind of are building up better technology for defense and you assume that they're going to keep on getting more sophisticated and you keep on needing to get better. But I mean, at this point we have like, it's like tens of thousands of people working on this at the company.

I think we spend like $5 billion a year was the last stat on sort of all this community integrity work. And it's like like our kind of defense budget, it's like, I mean just to put the numbers in perspective. That's why you call it defense budget. I mean, it's basically it's like, I mean, it's to defend the integrity of the community. But it's like, I mean, it is. I think bigger than the defense budget is probably most countries.

But it's, it's, and this is obviously a super critical part of what we need to do. But then, you know, there's also this important set of philosophical discussions, which is like, all right, so I think almost everyone will agree that like that's bad. Right? Like, you don't want, you know, countries basically creating networks of bots trying to convince people of stuff. You don't want terrorism or you don't want child pornography. Like, you don't want people inciting literal violence.

But then the question is, okay, so you build these capabilities to try to find this stuff. And it's a combination of basically humans, really expert humans, and really powerful AI systems working together. But like, sometimes they get it wrong. And like, and then we end up taking down accounts that we weren't supposed to take down. And, and that sucks, right? Because then we're kind of getting in the way of people expressing legitimate things.

And there's, you know, no system is ever going to be perfect. So the question is, you know, do you want more on a false positives or false negatives? Do you want, do you want there to be more kind of fake? Christian pages? Or do you want to accidentally take down, I don't know, what was the example recently of like the, the, the comedian who had a profile photo that had kind of a gun in it. And the, that we accidentally took down the, the, the sky's page that we were talking about this before.

Kill Tony? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, the Kill Tony podcast. Yeah. And then the guy, the system was just like, all right, like that's clearly violence, right? It's like the profile picture, like literally has a, a kind of rifle site and a gun that shows the guy dying. So it's like, so I mean, that sucks. I mean, this is some of the stuff that, I mean, this like hurts me, right?

Because like when we, when we take down something that, that we're not supposed to, I mean, that, that is like, I mean, that's the worst. I mean, that's like, I mean, that's like, I mean, that's like, I mean, that's like, it's like, like, like, say, like these Christian Facebook pages, I don't know how they found out that 19 of 20 were fake.

But if someone just says, I am Bob Smith and they post as Bob Smith and they have a photograph and they, but really what they're doing is trying to talk shit about Joe Biden and get people to vote Republican in the midterms. Like how, what, how do you know whether someone's really not like, this is the big argument with Elon and Twitter because Elon asked Twitter, like what percentage of your website is filled with bots and they say 5% and he says, I don't believe you. I think it's higher.

And let's find out how you've come to this conclusion. Yeah. And you know, they're, I believe they said that they just took 100 random Twitter pages and looked at the interaction and there's some sort of algorithm they applied to it. But how do you discern? Yeah, so I mean, I think estimating the overall prevalence is one thing, but I think that the question of, you know, looking at a page and is this page authentic? I think that there's a bunch of signals around that.

One of the things that we try to do is for large pages. We try to make sure that we know who the admin of that page is. We don't necessarily, if you should be able to run an anonymous page, you don't necessarily need to out yourself and say who you are running it. But we want to make sure that we sort of have like an identity for that person on file, because that way we know, like at least behind the scenes, that person is real.

For certain political things, I think having a sense of what country they're originating from.

I mean, some of that you can do just by looking at where their server traffic comes from, like is the IP address coming from Romania or, you know, is, or, because if it's like an ad in some other country's election, then you know, you probably want to make sure that that is, you know, especially in countries that have laws around that are like coming from someone who's a valid citizen or at least in that place.

So there's a bunch of, I think, I don't want one theme in my worldview around this stuff. I want to get to some of the stuff that we talked about before. It's like, I don't think that this stuff is black and white or that you're ever going to have like a perfect AI system. I think it's all trade-offs all the way down, right?

But you could either, you could build a system and you can either be overly aggressive and capture a higher percent of the bad guys, but then also by accident take out some number of good guys, or you could be a little more lenient and say, okay, no, the cost of taking out any number of good guys is too high. So we're going to tolerate having, you know, just a little bit more, like, more bad guys on the system. These are values questions right around what do you value more?

And those are super tricky questions. And part of what I've struggled with around this is I didn't get into this to basically judge those things. I got into this to design technology that helps people connect, right? It's like, and like, I mean, you could probably tell when we spent the first hour talking about the metaverse and the future of basically building this whole technology roadmap to basically give people this realistic sense of presence. It's like, that's what I'm here to do, right?

So this whole thing that's like arbitrating what is okay and what is not, I obviously have to be involved in that because this is at some level, you know, I run the company and I can't just abdicate that, but I also don't think that as a matter of governance, you want all of that decision making vested in one individual. But I think one of the things that our country and our government gets right is the separation of powers.

So one of the things that I tried to create is, we created this oversight board. It's an independent board that basically we appointed people whose kind of paramount value is free expression, but they also balance that with things like when is there going to be real harm to others in terms of safety or privacy or other human rights issues. And basically that board, people in our community can appeal cases to when they think that we got it wrong.

And that board actually gets to make the final binding decision, not us. So in a way, I actually think that that is a more legitimate form of governance than having just a team internally that makes these decisions or, you know, maybe some of them go up to me, although I don't spend a ton of my time on this on a day to day basis. But like, I think it's generally good to have some kind of separation of powers where you're architecting the governance.

So that way you have different stakeholders and different people who can make these decisions. And it's not just like one private company that's making decisions even about what just happens on our platform. How do you guys handle things when they're a big news item that's controversial? Like there was a lot of attention on Twitter during the election because of the Hunter Biden laptop story, the Neal. Yeah, we have this too. Yeah, so you guys censored that as well?

So we took a different path than Twitter. I mean, basically the background here is the FBI, I think basically came to us and some folks on our team, I was like, hey, just so you know, like you should be on high alert, we thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election. We have it on notice that basically there's about to be some kind of dump of that's similar to that. So just be vigilant. So our protocol is different from Twitter's.

What Twitter did is they said, you can't share this at all. We didn't do that. What we do is we have, if something's reported to us as potentially misinformation, important misinformation, we also, it's third party fact checking program because we don't want to be deciding what's true and false. And for the, I think it was five or seven days when it was basically being, being determined whether it was false, the distribution on Facebook was decreased, but people are still allowed to share it.

So you could still share it. You could still consume it. So we say the distribution is decreased. It got shared. How does that work? It basically the ranking in newsfeed was a little bit less. So fewer people saw it than would have otherwise. So it definitely by what percentage? I don't know, at the top of my head. But it's meaningful. But I mean, but basically a lot of people are still able to share it. We got a lot of complaints that that was the case.

You know, obviously this is a hyper political issue. So depending on what's out of the political spectrum, you either think we didn't censor enough or censor it way too much. But we weren't sort of as black and white about it as Twitter. We just kind of thought, hey, look, if the FBI, which I still view as a legitimate institution in this country, it's a very professional law enforcement, they come to us and tell us that we need to be on guard about something that I want to take that seriously.

Did they specifically say you need to be on guard about that story? No, I don't remember if it was that specifically, but it basically fit the pattern. When something like that turns out to be real, is there regret for not having it evenly distributed and for throttling the distribution of that story? What do you mean evenly distributed? I mean, evenly in that it's not suppressed. It's not. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I mean, it sucks.

Yeah. Yeah, I mean, because I mean, it turned out, after the fact, I mean, the fact that it was looked into it, no one was able to say it was false. Right? So basically it had this period where it was getting list distribution. So yeah, I mean, I, but I think like, I think it probably, it sucks though. I think in the same way that probably having to go through like a criminal trial, but being proven innocent in the end, the sucks.

Like it still sucks to have like that you had to go through a criminal trial, but at the end, you're free. So it's, I don't know if the answer would have been, don't do anything or don't have any process. I think the process was pretty reasonable. You know, it's, we still let people share it, but, but obviously you don't want situations like that. It's only much more reasonable than Twitter stance and it's probably also the case of armchair quarterbacking, right?

Or at least Monday morning quarterbacking, I should say, because in the moment, you had reason to believe based on the FBI talking to you that it wasn't real and that there was going to be some propaganda. So what do you do? Yeah. And then if you just let it get out there and what if it changes the election and it turns out to be bullshit, that's a real problem.

And I would imagine that those kind of decisions are the most difficult, the decisions of like, what is allowed and what is not allowed? Yeah. I mean, what would you do in that situation? I don't know what I would do. I would have to like really thoroughly, well, first of all, you're dealing with the New York Post, which is one of the oldest newspapers in the country.

So I would, I would say, I would want to talk to someone from the New York Post and I would say, how did you come up with this data, like where, where are you getting the information from? How do you know whether or not this is correct? And then you have to make a decision because they might have got duped. It's very, it's hard because everybody wants to look at it after the fact.

Now that we know that the laptop was real and then it was a legitimate story and there is potential corruption involved with him. We think, oh, that should not have been restricted, that should not have been banned from sharing on Twitter. Right. I think everybody agrees with that, even Twitter agreed with that. But the thing is then they didn't think that. In the beginning they thought it was fake. So what do they do?

Like if something comes along and the Republicans cook up some scheme to make it look like Joe Biden's terrible person and they only do it so that they can win the election, but it's really just propaganda. What are you supposed to do with that? You're supposed to not allow that to be distributed. So if they think that's the case, it makes sense to me that they would try to stop it. But I just don't think that they looked at it hard enough.

When the New York Post is talking about it, you know, they're pretty smart about what they release and what they don't release.

If they're going over some data from a laptop and you could talk to a person, but again, like this is just one story, like one individual story, like how many of these pop up every day, especially in regards to polarizing issues, like climate change or COVID or, you know, foreign policy or Ukraine, anytime there's like a really controversial issue where some people think that it's imperative that you take a very specific stance and you can't have the other stance.

Like those moments on social media, those trouble a lot of people because they don't know why certain things get censored or certain things get promoted. Yeah, I agree. And it's like to be in your spot. And I was one of the things that I really wanted to talk to you about is this because like to be in your spot must be insanely difficult to have, no matter what decision you make, you're going to have a giant chunk of people that are upset at you.

And there might be a right way to handle it, but I don't know what the fuck right way is. Well, I think the right way is to establish principles for governance that try to be balanced and not have the decision making to centralize. Because I think that it's hard for people to accept that like some team at meta or that I personally am making all these decisions and I think people should be skeptical about any so much concentration around that.

So that's why a lot of the innovation that I've tried to push for in governance is around things like establishing this oversight board. So that way you have people who are luminaries around expression from all over the world, but also in the US. I mean, folks like Michael McConnell, who is a Stanford professor, who is a Republican president appointed him, but I mean, he was, I think, going to be considered for the Supreme Court at some point.

He's a very prominent and kind of celebrated free expression advocate and he helped me set the thing up. And I think like setting up forms of governance around that are independent of us that basically get the final say on a bunch of these decisions. And that's a step in the right direction. I mean, in the Hunter Biden case that you talked about before, I don't want our company to decide what's misinformation and what's not.

So when we work with third parties and basically let different organizations do that. I mean, then you have the question of are those organizations biased or not? And that's a very difficult question, but at least we're not the ones who are basically sitting here deciding, we're not the ministry of truth for the world that's deciding whether everything is true or not. So I'd say this is not a solved problem. Controversies aren't going away.

You know, I think that there's, it is interesting that the US is actually more polarized than most other countries. I think sitting in the US, and it's easy to extrapolate and say, hey, it probably feels this way around the whole world. And from the social science research that I've seen, that's not actually the case. There's a bunch of countries where social media is just as prominent, but polarization is either flat or has declined slightly.

So there's something kind of different happening in the US. But for better or worse, I mean, it does seem like like the next several years do seem like they're set up to be quite polarized. So I tend to agree with you. There are going to be a bunch of different decisions like this that come up because of the scale of what we do. Almost every major world event has some angle that's like the Facebook or Instagram or WhatsApp angle about how the services are used in it.

So yeah, I think just establishing as much as possible independent governance. So that way, I'll obviously have to be involved. Our teams, Nick Clegg, who I appointed to be the president for all the policy issues for the company. He was formerly the deputy prime minister in the UK, the successful politician there and kind of very well-versed in government and all those political issues.

We'll have to do some part of this, but I think also kind of getting to more and more independent governance is going to be an important part of how we deal with this. Why do you think the United States is more polarized? Like what do you think is happening over here that's causing that? I think that that's, I mean, I'll speculate, but I think that there are people who have studied and thought about this a lot more.

I think there's probably a media environment issue that predates the internet, right? So I think we have sort of, it seems like I don't want to say uniquely because it's probably we're probably not the only country that has this.

But in terms of having like, you know, some of the news is so far left and some of it is so far right, I think, you know, there's all this talk about filter bubbles on the internet, but I think even predating this, like going back to like the 70s or 80s when Fox News and all these other, you know, cable, these kind of prominent media organizations were established, I think that that has had a long-term effect and people have studied that.

But there might also be something about just the way that our governance is set up where, you know, we have two parties, right? We have these primaries that basically, you know, make it so that, you know, it's almost like you're not promoting people who are trying to be kind of the centrist. You're basically promoting people who are the extreme of their party. So I think that there are really sensible reforms like open primaries, right?

That, that I think would probably have a pretty big impact on the political culture in the country. And some of these other countries that are a little bit more parliamentary by definition, to allow there to be more candidates and more parts of the spectrum.

But I want to be careful about not, you know, talking too far out of school because I'm not a, I'm not a, you know, political scientist, but I'm going to have to spend a little bit of time thinking about this because, you know, I think a lot of people want to point to social media as the primary cause of this.

And I just think, you know, when you look at the fact that polarization has been rising in the US since before the internet, that just makes it seem like it's very unlikely that social media is kind of the prime mover here.

And then if you look at the, the fact that there are all these other countries around the world where social media is used just as much, yet the polarization is flat or just not growing that quickly or in some places even going down kind of suggests that they're, that that really is not the primary thing that's going on. So I don't know. I mean, it's a, it's a really tough, it's a really tough set of questions.

I think you're dead on with the open primary idea because this idea that's only party loyalists to get to vote on each side, you're, you're promoting this ideological adherence instead of reasonable ideas that people can enjoy or not enjoy and, you know, resonate with or not. I think, I don't think social media is to blame, but I think social media for a lot of people, it accentuates the divide because it gives it more time to immerse themselves with it.

And I think it's, it's an unfortunate aspect of some people that they spend a lot of time distracted on things that don't immediately affect them. Yeah. But those things become their main focus in life. Yeah. And I think that's a distraction that's like almost like a form of procrastination that people get involved with. And it just seems like a natural thing with people and it's, I think it's a time management issue and I think it's a discipline issue.

I think some people have never really been taught time management or discipline, especially in regards to the type of information that you take in. They just like see something that upsets them. What is that? What's going on? Why are they doing that? And then they just get upset and then that's their whole day.

And, you know, I see things as in terms of like, I'm very, very careful with time management because like anything that's going to take up too much time that's not net benefit, that's not, I'm not enjoying or is it going to want to be a negative thing? I just, I'm not interested. And but I've developed this over time to recognize like that's a trap. Get out of there. Like you can't put out all the fires. You will be a fireman all day long. There's no way.

If you just want to be upset at things and just engage with things that will upset you, there is no shortage of new stories. There's no shortage of political issues. There's no shortage of everything. And you have to figure out time management and discipline and some people never do. And I think that's more of the problem than social media and algorithms and all these different things that people are blaming for our woes.

More of the problem is a lack of education, like explaining to people that you, if you're awake for one hour, during that hour, it is your choice what to think and focus on. In 24 hours, it's the same thing. You're just spreading it out. You decide what to do. Now if you want to spend all of your time going back and forth on Roe v Wade on Twitter, good luck. Go do that. But you're not going to change the landscape. That's what voting is for. You're not going to change people's opinions.

Like if you want to make interesting videos and post them on Facebook, okay? If you want to like talk about things and have a perspective that you think is like really well formed and it's compelling, go ahead and make that. But if you get sucked into that world of just looking for things to complain about, that's really you. You don't have to do that. No one's forcing you to do that.

Yeah, I mean, I think your point around what if people have control over is really important because I think the people who are happy and productive, I think, tend to focus on things that they have some agency over. Yes. And it's not that the other issues aren't important around a national civic issues. I mean, they matter.

But there probably is a healthy balance where yeah, I mean, this just goes back to the time management conversation we're having before, which I mean, you could spend all your day and more a thousand times over just reacting to things that are going on in the world. I do think that there's really a thing around kind of narrowing the aperture in your life to like what's around you, the people you care about. I don't know. I think that does drive a lot of happiness for people.

And so I think it's one of the interesting questions is how do we balance now having access to like an just historically unprecedented amount of information about issues that are going on in other places, which on the one hand drives, in theory, it should drive more transparency and accountability and energy towards those things. But I mean, maybe that just needs to, like that needs to, like that energy needs to come over a, you know, a balanced over a longer period of time or something.

Like I tend to think that all the transparency that we've gotten from social media will lead to good progress on a lot of things. But I do think it can, if you just focus on kind of broader issues and not, if you don't focus, I do know there's a certain thing about people's happiness that has to come from, you know, what's right around you in your world. Most definitely. And it's not to say that you shouldn't get upset about important issues, you know, like and express yourselves.

It's just a matter of like how much time you're spending on it. Yeah. You know, unless you are really disciplined and really careful with your time, you can get, you can get sucked into these things and you can waste your life, like just arguing with people online. And I just don't, I don't think it's healthy for folks. For entertainers and comedians in particular, it's really bad.

Like I see so many comedians that get so much anxiety from like reading comments and going back and forth with people who are like talking shit to them on Twitter. Yeah. And I always tell them like don't do that. Like it's really bad for me. Yeah. And I struggle with this too. Yeah. Well, I mean, on the one hand, some of this is, it's free product feedback.

Right. Right. So, I mean, so like, actually, this is like one of the hard things about it's, you don't want to be so close that you're not listening to criticism because then you're not going to grow. Right. So finding people in outlets that will provide criticism, but from a place of actually trying to help you grow rather than tear you down is very rare. Sometimes I struggle with this.

I do sometimes feel like I need to, like I do want to try to understand all of the different perspectives that people have. But I think the thing that's tough is that a lot of those people aren't necessarily trying to help us build something better. Right. So. And there is just a lot of negativity in it. Like, it gets to you. Right. And I think there's a question of balance where, at what point are you kind of better off?

And it's like, yeah, you want to push forward on the things you believe in, but you don't want to put on blinders and not consider alternative viewpoints. But then you could spend all your time looking at critique that's not necessarily trying to be constructive. And then that's just going to be super negative for your mental health. So, yeah. I think probably a lot of the happiest and most productive people are at least like, they're, I don't think you're ever going to carve out.

I don't think you should want to close off all that stuff completely. But I think at least being able to carve out a good amount of your day to be able to focus on like what you want to push forward and like things in your life that matter is, I think that's just really important to like, I don't know, being a grounded person. I think it's also important to establish an ethic where you communicate with people online the same way you communicate with them if they're in a room with you.

And I think that is not something that a lot of people adhere to. People, they talk to people on Twitter like it's not a real human without, they don't have real feelings. And you're just trying to say the most biting, mean, and cutting thing that you can. And that's unfortunate. I don't, I don't, I don't do that. I used to engage in it. Like I used to argue with people back and forth and I realized like, what am I doing? Like this is not good. I always feel like shit. I never feel good.

Even if I win the arguments, it doesn't feel good. It's all, you're filled with anxiety. And then a new fire starts up in the comments, you know, like someone else will jump in and then you got a new opponent and like, what are you doing? Like well, that's, that's a massive resource problem. Like it's a, it's a giant issue and whether or not you, you want to focus on important things in life or whether you want to like win these little verbal battles between people on Twitter or Facebook.

It's just, it's unnecessary. It's just, just for allocation of resources, it's a terrible idea. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, what we hear from our community is that that's not what people want to spend their time. So I think that there is, I think that part of the challenge in designing products is sometimes what people tell you that they want to spend their time on is different from what they actually do spend their time on. I'm sure.

But, um, but I think a lot of the time, even if people's revealed preferences of what they actually spend their time on are different, it's, there's some truth and aspiration to what they think they want to spend their time on that like there is some long term value in helping out with that too.

So that's why, that's why I've just consciously tried to, you know, have a, just downplay a lot of the political controversy on, on, on the services of a bid and, you know, it's like what, what do people come to our services for? It's connecting with other people, right? I mean, there's, and expressing what matters to you, which I mean, for most people isn't some kind of big global issue. It's like something that matters in their life. Like what's going on with my kids life?

You know, how, how's my wife doing? You know, what's going on in my local community, right? And I don't know, I think that there's something that's powerful about being able to focus more on that and, and be a bit more grounded in that.

And it's not that we do that perfectly, but I, I do think social media tends to allow that a lot more than previous mass media did because by definition, mass media just had to focus on, on issues that concerned a lot of people at once, whereas I think one of the best parts of social media is that it is so inherently local to, you know, just what matters to, to you and your, your friend group.

I mean, what, what, what's more kind of local to you than like the specific people that you have relationships with? I mean, that's, yeah, that's the, that's why that's why so many people use it. Very good point. And also the interesting aspect of social media that I think often gets ignored is the discussion of social issues. I mean, people have a greater understanding about how most people think about social issues today than we ever did in the past.

They were sort of informed how we felt about things based on the news, based on, you know, the rare commentator on the news or stories that were in the news or editorials that were in the New York Times or what have you. And now you get a day to day sense of how people feel about things.

And of course, it's also clouded by people that are saying things to sort of virtue signal and get people to like them based on the opinion they think is going to be the most likely to attract positive attention. But at least is opening up this new field of people openly debating and discussing ideas that used to be only talked about by people that were already approved and on television and in the media. So we sort of get this, particularly about videos, right?

Videos are a really interesting example that because someone can have a really concise and interesting perspective on something and that'll get shared millions and millions of times. And it just has to go viral, it just has to catch someone's opinion and go, wow, she's got a really good point. And then that gets out there. That is really powerful. And that's something that never existed before where a just a regular person with an interesting idea can just catch fire.

Yeah. Yeah. And I think that that's an area hopefully with better recommendation systems that will be able to be more possible in the future than has been in the past. I think as the AI can help people discover things that they might be interested in. Yeah. I mean, I'm a little more mixed on this. I mean, I think on the one hand, I think the comments and actual discussions that happen online are not as good as they could be.

I mean, I think like live interactions, like what we're having now, I think that's hopefully an interesting discussion for people who are watching. But I think if you look at like comment threads, like you're talking about, I think that experience probably needs a significant amount of innovation before it's good. But I do think being able to see different people's opinions and maybe more like the original posts than the comments back and forth.

Because like when I see a friend has some opinion on something, like I know where that person's coming from, right? In terms of their values and their life story. And that just means a lot more to me than like, I don't know, the New York Times telling me that something is good or bad. And there's also a lot of diversity because people tend to have friends who are from different backgrounds. And before the internet, I think the average person basically had a few different media sources.

They probably had each one had some kind of specific editorial leaning. And now the data that I've seen on this actually is that social media generally exposes people to a way more diverse set of views. Now, there is a question about how people react to that. I think sometimes when people see stuff that they don't agree with, there's a productive way to present something that someone might disagree with in an unproductive way.

And sometimes if you present something that someone's not going to agree with, they'll actually kind of shell up and disagree with it even more. They're after being exposed to that point of view. So that's another area that we and the rest of the industry might be able to improve on over time. But I think that this notion around filter bubbles and people only see one type of thing.

I think by this point has been pretty thoroughly debunked in terms of just statistically the diversity of what you're seeing online from different sources as way greater than it ever was before. I think people just don't make very compelling arguments. That's one of the reasons why so few people are willing to think and listen to differing opinions on things.

It's so often people are either preaching to the choir or shouting down at the person that has the opposing view instead of expressing themselves in a very neutral and objective way that considers all the possibilities. And this brings me back to fact checkers. Because oftentimes fact checkers are incorrect. And they are biased and it is subjective as to whether or not what is a fact and what is not a fact, especially about some more controversial issues. How do you choose fact checkers?

How does a fact checker go through a mountain of data and come to a conclusion and then that has used for content moderation? Yeah, so there's a whole discipline around and professional discipline around fact checking. These organizations are supposed to basically get accredited. They're generally quite professional about how they do this. That's another thing.

Not only did we not want to be deciding what is true or false, we also didn't want to be in the business of deciding which fact checkers are professional and not. So we basically outsource that to this accreditation. It's widely respected. So as sort of the best that there is, even though it's not without flaws like you're saying. But what we tried to do was basically we give the fact checkers the basic guidelines to not focus on things that could be opiniony.

So there are things online that are obviously, I don't know, just like obviously kind of wrong memes or crazy conspiracy theories or something like that. And I mean that's a pretty categorically different set of things. Then like, is there some shade of to which some political candidates said something that was slightly false and like, can we use that as an excuse to like ding them?

So I think when the program is working the way it's supposed to, you know, the overwhelming majority of people in our community tell us that they don't want to see things that are kind of obviously false flowing through the system, right? It just decreases trust in the system. And if there was a way to get rid of that, then it's like people on both sides of the political spectrum would want that to be the case.

I think where it ends up being an issue is when the fact checkers sort of veer towards getting into stuff that's not as obviously black and white and a little more political. I mean, not a lot of the stuff that's blatantly wrong isn't necessarily even political. It's just like stupid shit. And it's, so I'm not those who the area is that I've seen that become the most controversial. How do you make decisions when like I can understand the wanting to stop the spread of misinformation?

But there's certain things that are so dumb where I feel like they should be allowed to be spread like flat earth. Like if someone has a flat earth theory, God, I want to listen. I want to listen because it's so dumb. I want to know how does someone start to form these ideas because there's a thriving community. I don't know if you know, if you ever Google hashtag spaces fake, I have not.

Yes, should there's a large group of humans out there that believe that we live in some sort of a dome and that there's like essentially like bulbs hung in the sky. It's so dumb. But I mean, like, what do you do about that? Like if I was running Facebook, I would let that stay. Well, I believe that in there. So dumb. So what important nuance on this though is we don't, we don't block misinformation.

We basically just have a label that puts, that goes on it that says that a fact checker says this is false and show it a little bit less in the ranking and newsfeed. But don't you stop a person's ability to share something with that hash that you can share it. But what if someone is a person that is known to spread certain misinformation? Don't you make it so you can't tag that person? It depends on what the stuff is. There's, I mean, we can go super deep on all the nuances.

There's misinformation that could lead to harm. Right. So misinformation that veers on things that lead to violence or health safety that we treat in one way, and then there's just misinformation. Like stuff that's wrong that people say reduces trust in the system when they see it, but that we have no reason to believe is going to lead to any like physical safety issue for people. And that we just treat differently. I mean, that it's like, yeah, we'll put a label on it.

We'll, you know, if we have the choice to either show your cousins, you know, giving birth photo or that, we'll kind of show the other content above it. And fundamentally, we're not going to prevent you from sharing it or prevent people from seeing it. You know, when Jack Dorsey and I had a conversation about this, one of the things he said that he was in favor of and was trying to promote the idea of two versions of Twitter.

He wanted to have a moderated Twitter and then he wanted to have a Wild West Twitter. Like you wanted to have something where it's like 4chan or something, just like let people do whatever they want and just open up those barn doors. And as soon as you go in there, it's chaos. Like what do you think about that? And do you think that there is an important function of content moderation that the set of tone? I mean, you can kind of see it. Yeah, I mean, yeah.

I think that the tough thing is, so there's like most of the categories of harmful content are things that I think almost everyone would agree on. Right, so it's like you don't want foreign nations interfering and stuff like the bot networks. You don't want terrorism. You don't want child pornography. You don't want like blatant intellectual property violations. You don't want people promoting violence. Okay, so you go through all this stuff.

I think that that's, most of that stuff I actually think is not that controversial. Right, it's like people want it gone and they expect us to, you know, as a technology company that operates at scale to be able to do this reasonably well. So then I think that there are a couple of issues. One is sometimes those systems get that stuff wrong and we say that something is bad when it wasn't or we miss something that is bad.

So I know there's that type of issue, which is like you just make an operational mistake, which is important, but it is kind of one type of issue. Then I think you get into the types, there are a couple of types of issues and I think misinformation is probably the biggest one where there is actually just not widespread agreement at all about how to handle it.

I think that a large percent of the population, the vast majority says that they don't want to see misinformation, but then people disagree on what misinformation is. Right, so, so people don't want to see what, people don't want to see what they think is misinformation, but, but honestly, even more than that, they, they don't want other people to be, to be kind of, to see what they think is misinformation.

So I think that's, so that's pretty difficult because then different people have different views. And I think that there, I mean, maybe you could have a policy like what Jack was talking about for, for that type of content. I mean, I don't think you're going to have a wild west version of social media where you're just allowing terrorism free for all. I mean, that's crazy. They have the Taliban is on Twitter, which is really wild because Donald Trump isn't, yeah, yeah, tougher.

I'm not super deep on Twitter's policies, so, so tougher me to comment on that, but Twitter has pornography. I mean, they have hardcore pornography. You could just accidentally stumble onto someone you follow as page and they have a hard part. Yeah, so that's something that just is more of going back to your point around just for the community feel. Mm-hmm. Pornography is a thing that we don't allow.

And I get somewhat controversial because I mean, it's like you could make a pretty good argument. I think that like this isn't doing physical harm to people. I mean, I know that there's arguments on both sides of that, so I don't want to go super deep on that. But like, but I'd say our reason for not wanting pornography is more for the feel of the community than, than, than the, than kind of the sense of harm. And obviously child pornography is different. That's, that's obviously real harm.

But, but I think that's one category of, of, of content where it's kind of more of an editorial moderation decision. I don't think it's a political decision. It's just it's more of like we want the feel of the service to be about people connecting with their friends and family and, and, and not necessarily coming across that kind of content. But yeah, I mean, that's sort of I think how, how the whole thing breaks down. I mean, there's most of the stuff that, that I think gets taken down.

Actually, most people would agree needs to get taken down. And then I think there's mistakes. And then there's, you know, stuff like how do you handle misinformation, which I think society as a whole doesn't agree on. So my basic approach to that is give people choice and try it like so basically don't take it down.

But, but basically let people share the stuff, but also flag if something, if, if, if a, an accredited fact checker said it might be false and also get us that we shouldn't be the ones deciding what's true in false. So kind of try to set up this independent governance to do that. I think it's a pretty well balanced system. It's not perfect. We'll need to keep on iterating on it and, and making it better over time.

But those are the basic principles for kind of how I, how I think about navigating that. One thing that people freak out about and oftentimes I'm a little skeptical of their concerns is people think they're being shadow banned. It's always people think they're being shadow banned. Like is shadow banning a real thing? And what does that mean? Well, I mean, there's no policy that is shadow banning. So I think it's sort of a slang term.

But that maybe refers to some of the demotions that we're talking about, right? So if someone posts something that gets marked as false by, by a fact checker, then it'll get somewhat less shown in the future. Just that post or all of their posts for the future. I think that there's, if you do it once, then it's that.

And then I think if there's like some history within a page or there's, there's kind of different rules for pages and groups and different things, then there can be some kind of broader policy that applies. But when I look into this stuff, because I've been a lot of my friends and people I know just send me examples, because unfortunately there are a lot of mistakes.

And I think part of the issue is that, okay, if there's three and a half billion people using these services, and if we make a mistake 0.1% of the time, that's still millions of mistakes. Right? So it's like, there's all these cases. And that sucks, right? It's like, so that's, there are all these cases where we missed something that we should have taken down or we enforce something that we weren't supposed to.

But I'd say, as it relates to kind of concerns about shadow banning, a lot of the time when I look into stuff, people attribute some motive or like, ah, this is like, like meta has some stupid policy in place that blocked this or they're banning this thing. And a lot of the time, it was either just a mistake.

So nothing was supposed to happen, but like there was some bug in the system or like, or some system didn't work the way it was supposed to, which is a real issue, but it's not an ideological issue. And a lot of the time also, when people are worried about stuff like shadow banning, it actually, like, there, maybe their post just wasn't as good or something. And it didn't like, and it just didn't get the distribution that they wanted it to. But I don't know.

I mean, you highlighted some examples to me a few weeks ago of someone who was saying that they like couldn't follow your account or something and you posted and it was, and I mean, so I looked into it because I'm like, okay, I'm like, I'm gonna see Joe soon. And like, I want to kind of want to understand what these issues are. And it like, like, that's an example where it's like, it had nothing to do with your account.

It was like, it was, it was basically, there was some bug and that person had kind of taken a bunch of actions quickly or something and like, we basically just for spam protection, stop them from taking a bunch of actions. But it's like, so I think people sometimes read in, like some ideological bent or policy thing into this that, I think often isn't there.

But unfortunately, there just are, because the scale is so big, there are gonna be millions of mistakes, you're gonna be able to find almost any pattern that you want in that much data. So I haven't figured out how to crack that nut of kind of communicating. It's also an interesting problem because there's people don't really know what's going on behind the scenes. So there's this like sort of in their eyes, a lack of transparency. It's like, how does this all work?

So they assume there's nefarious intentions and that someone is, yeah. Someone's censoring them. Yeah. Do you have any, I mean, I'm curious how you'd think about this if you're in my position? I thought about it. I would imagine it would be incredibly overwhelming and I'd probably be on Xanax. I don't know. Or you just work out more. Yeah, I just work out more. Yeah, I wouldn't take that. You just like, but just the, still like more MMA.

But the amount of foreign countries that you're dealing with too, I mean, you have Facebook and how many languages? Well, I don't even know. I mean, we just ruled out an AI tool that allows us to translate posts to all these languages where they're, it's like just, yeah, it's like hundreds of, I think it's more than 100 languages. Well, I love to use that on Instagram, like especially because I follow a lot of Gigi Tsubas and they'll say something important. Yeah, yeah, click the translation.

Yeah, yeah, that's there. That's there. Yeah, no, it is there. It's really cool. Yeah, yeah. I love that. And the amount of countries that are using this and talk, like I wouldn't even want to just pay attention to the people that are speaking English. If you're trying to moderate all the people that are speaking, you know, a million different languages, like how? Oh, yeah. I can't imagine.

Yeah. This one and one thing I wanted to talk to you about is when you first started Facebook, you clearly could have never imagined that it would become what it is now. Yeah. What was it like going through the stages of growth of this thing where, oh, great, it's successful. Yeah. Oh, hey, Facebook is taking a holy shit. We're overthrowing governments. Like what is happening? What is this thing now?

Yeah. What has that been like for you to assume this position and to have this position evolve and spread and for you yourself to become this worldwide figurehead and, you know, become this insanely successful person who is involved in this social media platform that is so massive. It's just so beyond and now with WhatsApp and you have Instagram and you have, you have Oculus, you have all this going on. I mean, yeah. My freaking you not just thinking about it. No, no. I've spent a long time.

Yeah. It's like breath deeply. No, I spent a lot of time thinking about this. Imagine. Just like, it's like why us? Like, what happened that we were the ones who built this, like me and the Scrooze of People? Where's my face? Where'd it go? Yeah. You know? Here's my reflection on this. And I'm curious for your view on it. If you think this is just crazy. But when I was getting started, I remember the night that I launched the original Facebook website at my college, right?

It was just a website for my college to basically you can, it was literally a Facebook, right? It's like my, like Harvard didn't have a paper Facebook and I was like, this is stupid. Let's just make a version where people can input their own stuff because people like expressing stuff about themselves and people are really interested in learning about other people. So let's go do that and we can help people connect around that. So I launched it and I went to go get pizza with my friends.

And that night we were talking about how it was really cool that I got the sad at Harvard and people were going to use it at Harvard. But someday someone was going to do this for the world. And it was not even like a possibility for me that that was going to be us. It was like completely obvious that it was going to be someone else, right? It was like, we're just college kids. Like who are we to do this, right? It's, you have like Google and Microsoft and Yahoo at the time.

It's like great technology companies that have thousands of engineers and like all these servers and all this resources. So it's like, it just wasn't even a question. It wasn't even a hope that I had that we would do it. But then like, okay. So we just kind of kept going where it's a launch at Harvard and then what year was that?

2004. And a bunch of students from other schools started writing in and as soon as I optimized the code and basically got like could make it said, I could run this at more colleges at the same time. I started launching at more colleges and like launched it at like two more colleges at a time, like every week. And and and it just kind of kept on going. And I think a lot of people just kind of like wrote it off, right?

It was this thing that you know, a lot of people in colleges loved, but people like, okay, that's kind of a kid thing. That's not, it's not going to be a global thing. And I was like, no, someday someone's going to do this. It's going to be a global thing. But like Google and Microsoft and all these companies could never really get motivated to do it because there was probably a bunch of internal bureaucracy or forces that were like naysaying against like, why this is a valuable thing.

So then, okay, then the people were in college started graduating and they kept on using it. So then it was like, okay, so this clearly isn't just a college thing. When we started it in 2007, we opened it up beyond college so that anyone can sign up and people of all different ages started signing up. And then the meme shifted from this is a college thing to this is a fad, right? Because people, you know, you mentioned my space and you know, there's this whole string of social apps like this.

There's Friendster and there's my space and it was the whole thing was there's like one after another. So it's like, no, there's not going to be one for like 20 years, right? That lasts for like for 20 years or 30 years. It's like this is a fad and probably, you know, inside Google or Microsoft, there were probably people who thought that this would be a cool thing to do and go build this but probably a bunch of bureaucracy and people like naysaying on it. So we just kept on going.

And then the next meme was, oh, it's never going to be a good business. Okay, they like, okay, so there's 100 million people using it. They've been going for like five or six years, you know, it's, you know, maybe it's not a fad, maybe, maybe people are going to keep on using it. But like, but I mean, there's only one good internet ads business and it's Google. So it's like the chance that like someone can invent another one. It's like, that seems really low.

So it's like, I don't know, just was known really motivated. So I guess my reflection on this is that I think with so many things in the world, I think we did it because we just cared more and actually believed in it. So we just kept going, right, it shouldn't have been us. Like people had more resources all along the way and cared more. And I've just found that that's actually sort of something that I've noticed in other areas too.

So if you notice like, if you think about like what, what like Elon's doing with rockets, you know, or like what we're trying to do with the metaverse, right? It's just like, these are sort of these crazy things. And I do think at some level, just the people who believe in them the most and are willing to spend like a decade or 15 years of their life kind of digging in the trenches when investors are telling you that it's not a good idea. Or I don't know.

I think I think like kind of care is probably undervalued in terms of determining what who ends up doing what in the world. I think most people probably have an assumption of like something that is so obviously true to you that you just assume that other people are going to go do it. But just because it's so obvious to you doesn't actually mean that it's that obvious to other people, right?

So I mean, you probably have this around a lot of the stuff that you do, like stuff that you talk about the way you kind of explore all these different topics on your podcast, the way you do comedy. But I don't know. I mean, I'm curious if you've had that experience where it's like you just where you feel like those things are just like so obvious that obviously other people should get them to, but then just like no one does.

Well, I think you had the advantage in the early days of being young and having a perspective that's not overly influenced by commerce and by corporations and by corporate politics. Like if you think about like Google tried to do it with Google Plus, I remember I had a good friend that worked at Google. But it was too late then. Yeah, it was too late then. I was joking around with her. I'm like, this is dark shit. This is never going anywhere. And then you have an original idea. Exactly.

I mean, you can come late to something as long as you sort of have a unique contribution that you can bring to this. Right. But they didn't. Yeah. So you were trying to get people to escape, leave from other social media platforms to go to this other clunky one that is just basically like a beta version of some new, you know, new Facebook or yeah, yeah, just built the same thing six years later. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, it wasn't compelling.

But it is interesting though, because it's like when a product like yours achieves escape velocity, it gets to this point where it's just so big and it's like you have to have Instagram, you have to have Facebook. You just everybody uses it. It's just one of those things. And I am always fascinated to like what is that like for the person who made it? And it's got to be so bizarre to see it just to continue to spread. I mean, it's not, it's not getting smaller.

Just keeps getting bigger, which is nuts. Like you have three billion people that's getting bigger. That's nuts. Yeah. Well, how long do you see yourself doing this? How long do you see yourself running it? Do you think there's ever going to come a point in time with this stress is just overwhelming? Like just pawn it off to somebody else and I'm not sure if that'll be the reason. I mean, I don't mind.

I think I'm probably going to do this for a while just because I kind of viewed the phases of the company as the first phase was building Facebook. And it's like, okay, can we build a social product that's super successful? And we did. We basically made like the most used service in the world. And then it's like, okay, like once you're lucky, but like can we do this multiple times? Right. So, and then that's when we got Instagram joined us super early.

I think there were 16 employees at the time and I think it had 20 million people using it or something, something like super early. And what's that? Why didn't you pick up Instagram? What year was that? 2012. It was the same year we went public, but it was really small at the time. Super talented team. Kevin, super talented guy who created Kevin and Mike. And did a lot of awesome work, worked together. And then the WhatsApp folks joined. I think there were about 60 people working with WhatsApp.

These were super early things when they joined us. But we've scaled both of those two. And WhatsApp now is, you know, more than 2 billion people Instagram is, I don't think it's quite 2 billion yet, but it's basically, it's on its way. So, and then Messenger, we kind of grew from scratch and that has more than a billion people too. So, it's like, okay. So, for the second phase of the company, it's like, went from building one great social experience to now building four.

So, it's like, all right, that's pretty good. We can do this. We can keep on evolving these things. And as you say, they keep on growing and the businesses around them are good. We're just empowering a lot of entrepreneurs around the world. So, really happy about all that stuff and there's a lot more to do. But I look at a lot of what we're doing still just in those experiences. It feels constrained by the fact that it's happening on a phone. And I just think phones are very limited.

So, I think for the next chapter of what we're going to do, it's about continuing to build those, but also defining what the next computing platform is going to be, which is for me, what the metaverse is all about. And this kind of immersive world and feeling of presence that you can have in the next person. I mean, you're never going to feel a super deep sense of presence with someone on the phone. But that's like the holy grail.

If we can deliver that through glasses or a headset, then like, that's where I'm going to dedicate the next 10 or 15 years of my life to. But like, I don't mind my outlook though on what types of things I want to focus on. I mean, I'm curious how this has changed as you've grown in your career too. But like for me, I don't know, for the first maybe like 15 years of building the company, I was really just like solely focused on like, let's connect more people.

Let's grow this community to be bigger and bigger. Let's grow the business to be bigger and bigger. And now, and I just want to care about that. I mean, I want to continue seeing these things thrive. But I think about my life more now in terms of projects that I want to take on on like a decade long basis. And there are some things at work, right? So like building out the metaverse and with VR and AR and building out the whole developer community and creator community around that.

And I view that as 10, maybe if it takes longer, 15 year project. But that's like something that I just want to kind of dedicate myself to. Done a lot of stuff on the philanthropy side where I just like, it's been really cool getting a chance to work with my wife Priscilla on this. It's just like opened up a whole new side of our relationship where like, it's like we were partners. And now we also get to work together and she's brilliant.

And she, you know, is a doctor and just understands so many more things about biological science than I do. And I can bring this whole engineering perspective. And like we can, we learn so much from doing that together. But basically, you know, our philanthropy, I mean, the long term goal is to basically create tools for the scientific community to enable them to either be able to cure, prevent or manage all diseases within this, with a century. And I think that's possible.

I mean, it's, but now within the decade, but within, within a century. So you know, for that, you know, we're taking on a bunch of kind of ten year projects to just sort of be able to observe different things about human biology working that haven't been seen before. So like one example is we're working on this imaging institute and imaging project where we want to be able to be able to, and you have like microscopes today and they can see stuff.

Very hard to see things that are going on like inside your body, right? You know, so you're blocked by the other tissue that's in the way. But now through a combination of different techniques, you can use this like cryoEM technique where you can like take certain tissue out of a person and it still will be, I mean, there are techniques where some of the tissue will still be alive for some period of time, even though it's opposite going to die because it's been removed from you.

And you can look at that under under a really powerful microscope. And then you can use AI techniques over time to be able to kind of extrapolate from what you've seen in very high resolution and the tissue that you've removed from the body to now being able to, okay, even though there's like optical and physical limits on what

you can see with a microscope in a body, you can use all this data that's been generated in AI to effectively be able to see different cells interacting like known as ever seen as synapse, you know, neuron, like fire and like what it looks like in the synapse of a brain before, like in a living organism. But I kind of think my engineering perspective on this is like, how are you going to debug a system or help solve it if you can't like step through the code, right?

Like one line at a time and like see everything that's happening, right? If you want to really understand what's going on in the brain, you need to see that, right? Um, so, I mean, that's the kind of project that we're doing in on the philanthropy side. So that's like, that's pretty cool too, right? But it's like a different kind of thing.

So over time, I, I, I've sort of broadened out, you know, it's not just for the first 10 years of, or so the company was so all consuming that I like really couldn't do much else and I wasn't that well rounded of a person. I think having a family changes that, I think it sort of forces you to become a little more balanced.

But now I'd say there's like projects that work, there's project in philanthropy, there's also just personal stuff that I just really enjoy like building up our ranch to be self-sustaining and like a hundred percent like off the grid and being able to grow all the stuff that we want there and like raise our own cattle and, um, I think that's, that's like a cool fun project too, right?

So at this point, I sort of define meaning in my life more by getting to work with people who I really like on a different set of things and just get to learn from doing a bunch of different things. But I'm curious how that's kind of shifted in your life as you've grown in your career too. I mean, it's, well, I think what you're dealing with is you have so much success that you're comfortable enough to you, for you to not think about just success and to only think about growing the business.

Instead you're thinking about projects that are fascinating to you, which is the ultimate form of success, right? Could you actually focus on the things that you're really interested in, whether it's in philanthropy or whether it's in like personal projects and hobbies or just business ideas that you, you might not even think are like the most financially viable, they're just fascinating to you. I think that's amazing.

I think that that, that I would love to see that in more people because I think so many people just get caught up in the game of resources and numbers and they just want to grow numbers and grow and have more money and have bigger toys and a bigger this and bigger that and it's a trap. You know, and I think sometimes people are caught in that trap when they're ahead of the game. They're winning the game.

They've won the game, but yet they're still like sucked into it and they never really branch off and find things that are deeply fulfilling to them. That's really unfortunate because that's the trap of the businessman. The businessman gets consumed by just wealth. They get consumed by success of the company, eternal growth and it's a real trap. I have a similar perspective in that I don't think about the, my show in terms of how it grows or how it does well. I just, I just do what I like to do.

And I think as much about archery and jiu-jitsu and playing pool and automobiles, I think about a lot of different things. I don't just think about the podcast and when I do the podcast, the very fortunate thing that I have is that it's who I talk to is entirely based on whether or not someone's willing to talk to them or whether or not I'm interested in talking to them. So that's all it is. There's no external pressure. So it never feels like a job.

It always like, oh, Mark Zuckerberg, I'd love to talk to Mark. He seems like an interesting guy. I don't like the way he sip water though. When you're siping water in the Senate, you're siping water like a robot. I mean, you see he's taking a real drink. I mean, I'm honestly this. I mean, honestly, that's the Senate testimony is not exactly an environment that is set up to accentuate the humanity of the subject. It does. Quite the opposite, right? I don't know.

I mean, if you're up there for six or seven hours, you're going to make some face that's worth making a meme out of. Right. And then they're just going to only concentrate on that. And that's going to be the big deal. But you know, so I'm just fortunate that I can do this and just and the appeal of the show, I think, I mean, if I had to think about it, I don't think about it too much, honestly.

But if I thought about it, I think the appeal of the show is that I'm actually interested in what the guest has to say and it's because those are the people I've chosen, whether it's I'm talking to a scientist or a philosopher or an athlete or you or anybody, I'm interested. I'm genuinely curious. And if I wasn't, I wouldn't do it. And so because of that, I think it translates to the people at home and it becomes, it, you know, resonates with people.

Yeah. I mean, there's a, I was going to say paradox. I'm not sure if it's a paradox, but I think that there's, there actually is a feedback loop between those things I would guess though. Right. It's like you're saying that you don't care as much about the viewership or the listenership of the show, but to some degree, because you're following your curiosity, you probably were producing a more interesting show that more people want to watch.

Yeah. I bet that for me, if, if I were, you know, solely focused on just kind of just turning the crank on, on the business, it would probably incrementally grow. But I think the, the way that people deliver these discontinuous entrepreneurial results is by investing in things that other people don't believe in yet and having conviction around things like that. So, I mean, I'm not like, I'm not focused on the metaverse primarily because I think there's some near term business opportunity.

I actually think we're going to lose a lot of money for a long time on this massive breath of things that we're working on that we talked about before. But I mean, I think that if, if we do good work on this, I think we should be positioning ourselves quite well for the future. And I do care about winning for, for all of our employees and our shareholders and stuff like that too. I mean, that obviously matters because we have all these awesome people who are actually doing the work.

Yeah, I mean, it's a brilliant gamble, but it's also a very well informed gamble. Like what you're doing is, and you're not just gambling, you're innovating. So it's, it's a really cool place to be. But what you're saying and what you're talking about is authentic focus and interest. And I think today in this world where there's so much bullshit, it's so hard to know what's real and what's not real, people value in authentic, they value authenticity rather than value it in a really unique way.

And when someone can create a service or a social media platform or something where like people really believe that the people behind it are trying to make it the best thing possible. And then not just trying to grow it forever and make it constantly get bigger and make more money. And they're, they're also genuinely trying to innovate and they're genuinely trying to expand into this new realm of the metaverse and they're genuinely trying to moderate content a thoughtful way.

That resonates with people. It's very important. That's probably one of the reasons why it's so big. And I think that, I think that applies to many, many, many things. But I think people are oftentimes very short-sighted and they're only thinking about growth. They're thinking about constant, never-ending growth. And they're not necessarily thinking about why am I doing this in the first place? What if I didn't have to do this anymore?

What if I had so much money that I could do whatever I wanted? Would I still do this? Why would I do it? And how would I do it differently? How would I do it differently if I wasn't thinking about just money? I was thinking in terms of big picture things and making it more enjoyable, making it more thrilling to me, making it more exciting. And I think that we're very fortunate you and I and that we have the ability to take those kind of choices.

And I think that kind of freedom is probably one of the most important freedoms for the Western person that's listening to this. Like, that does not confine in a communist country. I mean, there's obviously a lot bigger problems that they have. But like, you're in a position where you can make your own choices. Like, what would be the best choice to make? Well, the best choice to make is to actually follow your interests. Like, what is actually fascinating to you?

And for you, the fact that you're really interested in like health and philanthropy and those things as well as also interested in the metaverse and interested in AR and VR and all these different modalities, all these different ways to express it and how enriching it is to people's lives. It's fucking cool. Just trying. Why is it succeeding, man? I mean, it's obvious. It's pretty dope. And I think we're like three hours in. We could wrap it up here. All right. Thank you for coming.

It was really cool to meet you. Yeah. And I appreciate all the things you're doing, what you're saying. And I'm so glad you're into martial arts now too. It's great. Awesome. Yeah, no, it's great. You're good to get a chance to do this. Yeah, let's do it again sometime, man. Let's do it. Whenever you have some new crazy shit coming out and whenever we take things to a new next level. All right, come on in. We'll talk. Let's do it. All right. Thank you. All right. Bye, everybody. Bye.